From fa9c422d261adbe0e89635456ad81eb47353e151 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mads Lorentzen Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 20:14:59 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] feat(apply): restore 02-behavioral-profile.md to reviewer reading list Brings 02-behavioral-profile.md back into the reviewer's reading list (it was dropped in the earlier token-efficiency refactor). The reviewer now reads four files: 01 (candidate profile), 02 (behavioral profile), 03 (writing style), 04 (job evaluation). The LaTeX template files (05, 06) remain excluded, since those govern structural/LaTeX concerns the drafter already applied. The behavioral profile is there to let the reviewer cross-check whether the cover letter's voice matches the candidate's natural register - something 03-writing-style.md does not encode (03 has the universal rules like "no em-dashes, no cliches"; 02 has the per-person register like "Collaborator PI should not be given a combative solo-hero tone"). Also cross-references 02 explicitly in the Part B "Tone and style issues" category so the reviewer actually uses it during critique rather than just skimming it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) --- .claude/commands/apply.md | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/.claude/commands/apply.md b/.claude/commands/apply.md index 9350f53..618069a 100644 --- a/.claude/commands/apply.md +++ b/.claude/commands/apply.md @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ Write both files to disk. Keep the exact text of both drafts in working memory ## Step 3: REVIEWER - Research & Critique -Use the **Agent tool** to spawn a `general-purpose` reviewer agent. The reviewer gets a fresh context, so pass the drafts **inline in the prompt** below (do not make the reviewer Read them). Scope the reviewer's file reads to content-critique essentials only — the reviewer does not need the LaTeX template files (`05`, `06`) or the behavioral profile (`02`) to critique content. +Use the **Agent tool** to spawn a `general-purpose` reviewer agent. The reviewer gets a fresh context, so pass the drafts **inline in the prompt** below (do not make the reviewer Read them). Scope the reviewer's file reads to content-critique essentials only — the reviewer does not need the LaTeX template files (`05`, `06`) to critique content, since those govern structural/LaTeX concerns the drafter already applied. Replace ``, ``, ``, ``, and `` with actual values before dispatching. @@ -102,12 +102,13 @@ Use WebSearch and WebFetch to research: - Company culture and values ### 2. Read Reference Materials (content-critique only) -Read these three files — and only these — to ground your critique: +Read these four files — and only these — to ground your critique: - `.claude/skills/job-application-assistant/01-candidate-profile.md` +- `.claude/skills/job-application-assistant/02-behavioral-profile.md` — use this specifically to check whether the cover letter's voice matches the candidate's natural register. A "Collaborator" PI profile, for example, should not be given a combative, solo-hero tone; a "Persuader" profile should not be given over-hedged, apologetic phrasing. - `.claude/skills/job-application-assistant/03-writing-style.md` - `.claude/skills/job-application-assistant/04-job-evaluation.md` -Do NOT read `02-behavioral-profile.md`, `05-cv-templates.md`, or `06-cover-letter-templates.md` — those are structural/behavioral references the drafter already applied and are not needed for content critique. +Do NOT read `05-cv-templates.md` or `06-cover-letter-templates.md` — those govern LaTeX structure the drafter already applied and are not needed for content critique. ### 3. Drafts to Review Both drafts are provided inline below. Do NOT use the Read tool on the draft files — use these exact texts. @@ -146,7 +147,7 @@ Prose suggestions grouped by category. Produce each category even if your findin - **Missed keywords/requirements** — what to add and roughly where, if it cannot be expressed as a clean string replacement - **Company/department-specific angles** — connections between experience and the company's strategic priorities, based on your research - **Action-oriented reframing** — identify passive, generic, or low-energy statements and suggest action-oriented rewrites. Use this category especially for structural weakness that doesn't fit a single-sentence swap (e.g., "the whole opening paragraph reads as passive — restructure around your single strongest match to the posting"). -- **Tone and style issues** — check against `03-writing-style.md`. Flag any issues with tone, formality, or voice (cliches, hedging, over-humility, inconsistent register). +- **Tone and style issues** — check against `03-writing-style.md` AND `02-behavioral-profile.md`. Flag any issues with tone, formality, or voice (cliches, hedging, over-humility, inconsistent register), and specifically flag any mismatch between the letter's voice and the candidate's natural register as described in the behavioral profile. **CRITICAL RULE:** All suggestions must be grounded in actual profile data. Do NOT suggest fabricating skills, experience, or achievements. If a requirement is a gap, say so honestly and suggest how to frame adjacent experience instead.