Follow-up suggested during PR #275's merge review: spec-pinning tests for
the language_gate/language_note fields, matching the pattern already used
for the sibling gaps/strengths fields in this same file.
Four new assertions: Step 2's scoring-agent JSON schema declares both
fields with the PASS/FAIL/FLAG enum and distinguishes them from the
pre-existing `language` field; Step 3 documents the Language veto rule
mirroring the existing Location veto; Step 4 persists both fields into
seen_jobs.json; Step 5's presentation rules document the FLAG marker.
The Step 4 persistence test is a real regression guard, not just
documentation: language_gate/language_note were computed in Step 2 and
used to decide Step 3's veto, but an earlier version of this spec never
instructed Step 4 to actually write them to seen_jobs.json - caught via
live debugging (a real /rank run showed language_gate: null on every
entry despite the run reporting genuine vetoes), fixed once already.
Verified live that this test fails against that exact regression and
passes against the current (fixed) spec text.
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>
Gabriel Ignacio Mensi