* fix(web-research): stop treating a WebFetch 403 as a dead posting
WebFetch sends a bot user agent, and many bank and corporate sites answer
with HTTP 403 while serving the same page to a browser normally. Every
command treated that as "page unavailable" and degraded silently rather
than failing loudly:
- /rank marked live postings `expired`
- /apply fell back to search snippets, or to vague cover-letter prose
- /scrape stored listing-page `#fragment` URLs, which fetch fine and
return unrelated jobs, so every later /rank and /apply run on that
entry failed
Adds 09-web-research.md as the single reference: the trust boundary, a
curl browser-header retry with a tag-stripping extractor, a four-step
escalation order, the login-wall case, why the employer's own careers
posting beats an aggregator listing (the requisition ID and the grade
survive there), and the rule that a search-result snippet is a lead
rather than a source.
Wires it into /apply, /rank, /interview, /outcome, /notion-sync, the
job-scraper skill, and writing-style rule 5. Bumps 03-writing-style.md
to 1.2.0; 09-web-research.md starts at 1.0.0.
Aggregator examples are given generically (LinkedIn, Indeed, national
job boards) so the guidance holds in any market.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
* fix(web-research): gate the browser-header retry on robots.txt
Addresses review feedback on #277.
WebFetch identifies itself as Claude-User and honors robots.txt, so a 403 has
two very different causes and they must not be treated the same: a WAF default
on a site whose published policy allows access, or a site that has actually
declined. Retrying with browser headers in the second case circumvents the very
opt-out mechanism site owners are told they can rely on, and the core framework
cannot hold a looser standard than it asks of community forks.
The escalation now runs tools/robots_check.py before the retry. A disallow for
"*" or for "Claude-User" skips the retry entirely and goes to step 3 (find the
employer's own posting). The rule is stated plainly in 09-web-research.md so
later edits do not erode it: the retry exists to get past bot-filtering
firewalls on sites whose robots.txt permits access; it is never used to
override a site that has said no.
Two findings from testing the gate against live sites, both pinned by
tests/test_robots_check.py (15 offline cases):
- The WAF usually blocks robots.txt too. privatebank.barclays.com returns 403
on the policy file to Claude-User and 200 to a browser, so a naive gate would
block the retry on exactly the sites the retry is for. The checker reads the
policy as a browser when the honest request is refused, then obeys it
strictly - a policy you are prevented from reading cannot be honored, and
robots.txt is not the protected resource.
- urllib.robotparser cannot be used. It ends a record at a blank line and
matches rules in file order, so Barclays' real file (blank lines between
"User-agent: *" and its rules, "Allow: /" before "Disallow: /cs/") reads as
everything-allowed. That fails open, in the one direction that matters. The
checker implements RFC 9309 longest-match instead, with ties resolved to
Disallow rather than Allow.
Verified live: barclays /careers/ allowed and /cs/ blocked, ubs.com allowed,
jobup.ch /api/ blocked while /en/jobs/ stays allowed. 09-web-research.md
1.0.0 to 1.1.0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: kgb <kevingblackman@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adds Step 2b to /outcome: surfaces open applications gone quiet (default 10 days), drafts a brief channel-appropriate follow-up in the candidate's voice using only claims from the already-submitted materials, and logs it (followed up marker in notes + followup_YYYY-MM-DD.md in the archive). Reachable from the no-arg pipeline table (now showing days-quiet and follow-ups-sent) and via /outcome followup [N|company]. Draft-only never send, capped at two follow-ups terminating into Step 2's existing no_response path, and a thank-you note offered the moment Step 3 records a completed interview stage. Reads the contact_person column nothing previously consumed.
Folded into /outcome rather than a standalone command - dependency-free (unlike /gmail-sync) and reusing detection, the archive, the notes ledger, and the resolution path already there. The invited return of #46 (closed stale, not on merit). Guardrail tests mirror the /notion-sync pattern; 10-vs-30-day threshold contrast with /gmail-sync documented and test-pinned.
By @ayobamiseun.
CVs from /apply were named cv/main_<company>.tex, so a second role at the same company overwrote the first (cover letters already carried the role). Aligns CV naming to main_<company>_<role>.tex across apply, add-template, the CV template guide, CLAUDE.md, and SETUP.md; /outcome and /interview fallbacks glob main_<company>*.tex to match both legacy and new names. framework_version bumped on both touched framework files.
* feat(brand): tagline under the H1 and the hired-moment coffee line
Two items from the branding strategy: the positioning line lands in the
README itself (the repo description already carries it), and /outcome's
hired path gets its single, value-framed donation ask - once per hire,
never nagging, never effort-framed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
* feat(brand): pay-it-forward framing for the hired-moment line
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
07-interview-prep.md holds STAR examples, tough-question patterns,
questions to ask, and a roleplay protocol - and the job-application-
assistant skill names interview preparation as its Step 4 - but no
command operationalizes any of it. /apply ends at 'files ready', and the
moment an interview is scheduled, nothing picks the thread back up.
/interview does, drawing on the archive /outcome now maintains.
/apply optimizes what the company reads; /interview optimizes what the
company hears. The bridge is consistency: the interviewer read the
submitted CV and cover letter, so prep must match what they claim.
How it works:
- Loads the application context from documents/applications/
<company>_<role>/: the exact posting, the submitted drafts, and
outcome.md's stage + recorded feedback (stage-N feedback is the
highest-priority input for stage-N+1 prep). Graceful fallbacks for
applications that predate /outcome, stating plainly what is missing
- Runs the Company Research Checklist that 04-job-evaluation.md defines
but nothing executes, plus interviewer-angle notes from public
professional info only. Every company claim is independently verified
before it enters the pack - same rule as cover-letter claims
- Builds a stage-specific prep pack: likely questions (earlier-stage
feedback first, then fit-evaluation gaps with honest bridge answers
per 07's you-don't-have-X pattern, then posting requirements, then
stage type), STAR mapping via 07's Use-for tags with new drafts
grounded strictly in profile facts, a consistency brief of the
submitted documents' probeable claims, customized tough questions,
4-6 questions to ask, logistics tips
- Saves the pack to documents/applications/<company>_<role>/
interview_prep_<stage>.md - one per stage, kept as history,
gitignored with the rest of the archive
- Offers a mock interview following 07's Roleplay Guidelines verbatim,
with feedback calibrated against the behavioral profile (same
voice-consistency rule the /apply reviewer applies)
- Never edits framework or profile files, except appending
user-approved STAR examples to 07 on explicit request
Integration: /outcome suggests /interview when an interview stage is
recorded; documents/README.md documents the interview_prep_<stage>.md
files (and that /setup ignores them); README commands list and file
tree.
/setup Path A already mines documents/applications/<company>_<role>/
(job_posting.md, submitted drafts, outcome.md) to calibrate
04-job-evaluation.md and surface STAR candidates - but nothing in the
workflow systematically writes those folders, so the calibration machinery
only runs for users who hand-maintain the archive. /outcome closes the
loop: it writes the data /setup reads.
How it works:
- Identifies the application from job_search_tracker.csv (by argument, or
by listing open applications); applications made outside the workflow
get a new tracker row
- Records progress updates (interview stages, offers) and resolutions
using the exact status enum documents/README.md documents, plus one
additive value: in_progress, for open applications between updates.
/setup's calibration only draws conclusions from final statuses
- Archives the submitted cv_draft.tex / cover_letter.tex (copy, never
move; existing archived files are never overwritten - the archive is
what was actually submitted) and fetches job_posting.md from the
tracker's source URL while it is still alive; a dead URL gets a
user-pasted copy or an explicit unavailable stub, never a
reconstruction
- Updates the tracker row's status and notes; never restructures the CSV
- After 3+ resolved outcomes (or a repeating pattern), points the user
back to /setup Path A - /outcome writes data, /setup interprets it,
and this command never edits framework or profile files itself
- Idempotent: re-running appends stages and dated notes, never
duplicates folders, rows, or history
Also aligns the outcome.md status enum across docs: setup.md Step A3
listed hired/rejected/no_response/interview_only while documents/README.md
already had offer_declined; both now carry the full enum including
in_progress. documents/applications/** and the tracker are already
gitignored, so all recorded data stays personal.
Docs: README (commands list, file tree), documents/README.md (/outcome
cross-reference and in_progress semantics), one-line handoff at the end
of /apply Step 6.
