Add a Language Gate - no dimension currently checks language requirements (#275)

Nothing in the framework checks a posting's language requirements
against what the candidate actually speaks. It is not one of the five
Scoring Dimensions in 04-job-evaluation.md, it is not checked in
/scrape's Step 3 fit assessment, and it is not a field in /rank's JSON
output - even though /apply's Step 1 already extracts a posting's
required language generically, with nowhere to report a mismatch to.

This adds a Language Gate, structured like the existing Eligibility
Gate (read the posting, classify against profile data, hard-stop on a
real mismatch), built on a new structured Languages table in CLAUDE.md
/ 01-candidate-profile.md. /setup now asks for it directly (Path C), or
infers it from a CV/LinkedIn export (Paths A/B - LinkedIn exports
already carry a self-rated Languages section).

The gate compares a posting's stated language requirements against
that table with three outcomes:

- Requires a language not declared at all -> hard FAIL, never
  presented.
- Requires a higher level in a language that is declared (e.g. "fluent
  English" against a declared B1/B2) -> FLAG, not an auto-reject -
  scored and drafted normally, with the gap surfaced so the candidate
  judges it themselves (a "fluent" bar reads very differently from a
  strict employer vs. one that's flexible on it).
- Requires a language at or below the declared level -> clean PASS.

Wired through the three places that need it: /scrape (Step 3), /rank
(new language_gate/language_note fields alongside the existing
location veto - both are now persisted to seen_jobs.json, not just
used transiently to decide one run's shortlist), and /apply (Step 1's
language extraction now has somewhere to report to).

Out of scope, deliberately: this does not touch the free-form
Deal-breakers list or how it's used elsewhere (e.g. Scoring Dimension
4's relocation check) - that's a separate question this change takes
no position on.

Validated with two live-testing passes against real, unfetched
postings (not fabricated text) across 3 portals and 3 market languages
(Danish, German, Spanish/Argentina): 8/8 postings gated correctly in
the first pass, including ambiguous real-world wording ("you
communicate well in English") a rigid rule would have gotten wrong. A
second pass, run specifically to force a hard-FAIL case, found one
(a Danish posting requiring the ability to read Danish) and confirmed
it persists correctly and would be excluded from /rank's shortlist.

Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

.claude/skills/job-application-assistant/04-job-evaluation.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
-framework_version: 1.1.0
+framework_version: 1.2.2
 ---
 
 # Job Evaluation Framework
@@ -30,6 +30,22 @@ If the candidate's permit also constrains *hours* or *start date* (a student vis
 
 A role that fails this gate is not scored and not drafted. Everything below applies only to roles that pass it.
 
+## Language Gate — run before scoring
+
+No dimension or gate anywhere in this framework currently checks a posting's language requirements against what the candidate actually speaks - it is not one of the five Scoring Dimensions below, not a field `/scrape` or `/rank` track, and not something `/apply`'s language detection (Step 1, which already extracts a posting's required language generically) has anywhere to report to. This gate adds that check, structured the same way as the Eligibility Gate above: read the posting, classify against profile data, and treat a hard mismatch as FAIL before scoring.
+
+Read the posting's language requirements as stated for **the role itself** — not the language the ad happens to be written in. A posting written in a language you don't work in, for a role that only needs languages you do work in on the job, passes fine; only an explicit job-condition requirement ("fluent X required," "must communicate with the Y team in Z") triggers this check. For each language the posting requires as a job condition, compare it against your Languages table in CLAUDE.md / `01-candidate-profile.md`:
+
+| Posting requirement vs. your Languages table | Verdict |
+|---|---|
+| Requires a language **not on your table at all** (e.g. "fluent Polish required," "must communicate with the Warsaw team in Russian," and you list no Polish/Russian row) | **FAIL — hard stop.** Do not score, do not draft. Quote the exact requirement line. |
+| Requires a language you **do** list, but the posting's stated bar (as written — "fluent," "native," "C1+," "business-level") reads as plausibly **higher** than your declared level | **FLAG, then proceed.** Not a fail. Score and draft normally, but surface the gap explicitly in your report to the user (quote both the posting's requirement and your declared level) so they can judge it themselves — bars like "fluent" vary a lot by company and geography, and a recruiter may be flexible. Never silently drop the posting and never silently treat it as a clean pass. |
+| Requires a language you list, at or below your declared level (or the posting doesn't specify a level at all — just names the language) | **PASS.** No note needed. |
+
+Judge the level comparison the same way you judge everything else in this framework: read both sides as written and reason about it, don't force either into a rigid scale — CEFR letters, LinkedIn-style buckets ("professional working proficiency"), and plain-English words ("conversational," "fluent," "native") all appear in the wild and don't map onto each other precisely. When genuinely unsure whether a stated bar exceeds the candidate's level, prefer FLAG over a silent PASS — the human is meant to be the tiebreaker, not the gate.
+
+**Worked example:** a candidate whose Languages table lists Spanish (Native) and English (B1/B2). A posting requiring "fluent Russian" → **FAIL**, Russian isn't declared at all. A posting requiring "fluent English" → **FLAG**, English is declared but "fluent" plausibly exceeds B1/B2 — score and draft the application, but tell the candidate this posting's bar may be a stretch and let them decide. A posting requiring "conversational English" or unspecified English → **PASS**, B1/B2 clears a "conversational" bar cleanly.
+
 ## Scoring Dimensions
 
 Evaluate each job posting against these five dimensions: