Self-contained HTML dashboard generated from job_search_tracker.csv and the application archives: stat cards, status/sector/channel/funnel charts as hand-generated inline SVG (no CDN, fully offline), HTML-escaped interpolation throughout, and a filterable applications table. Includes Python guards for the command file and the reports/ gitignore rule.
* 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.
/scrape finds and dedupes postings; /apply evaluates one at a time in
depth. Nothing connects the two ends: after a scrape returns 20 jobs, the
user eyeballs a table to decide where to spend /apply effort. /rank is the
bridge: batch-score every new posting against the fit framework and return
a ranked shortlist.
How it works:
- Selects jobs with status "new" from job_scraper/seen_jobs.json (--all
re-ranks everything unapplied; a focus argument filters), excluding
anything already in job_search_tracker.csv
- Dispatches parallel general-purpose agents (~5 jobs each) that WebFetch
each posting and score the five dimensions from 04-job-evaluation.md.
The rubric (skill match areas, career goals, deal-breakers) is passed
inline per the same token-efficiency rules /apply uses; agents score
only from actually fetched content and mark dead postings expired,
never guessing from a title
- Triage depth by design: posting text vs. profile only - no company
research, no salary lookups. /apply's Step 1 evaluation stays
authoritative and always re-runs on handoff
- Aggregates with the framework's 30/25/15/30 weighting and verdict
bands; location deal-breakers veto regardless of score; deadlines
within 7 days get urgency flags and win ties
- Updates seen_jobs.json additively (status "ranked"/"expired" plus
rank_score/rank_verdict/rank_date) so /scrape dedup keeps working;
the tracker is read-only. Re-running is idempotent
Integration: job-scraper SKILL.md documents the new status values and
suggests /rank after large scrape batches; README (commands list, file
tree, quick-start step 4).
An ATS reads the compiled PDF's embedded text layer, not the rendered page,
and LaTeX can silently produce PDFs whose text extracts as garbage: icon
glyphs where contact details should be, (cid:*) markers from fonts without
Unicode mappings, interleaved lines from multi-column layouts. This matters
more now that /add-template lets users bring arbitrary templates. The
existing Step 5 loop verifies what a human sees; this adds verification of
what a parser sees.
New Step 5d in /apply (CV only - cover letters rarely go through keyword
screening; cleanup renumbered to 5e):
- Extract the CV PDF's text layer with pdftotext -layout. pdftotext
(poppler) is an optional dependency: if missing, the mechanical check is
skipped with a warning and keyword coverage falls back to the visual PDF
read - the same graceful-skip pattern as salary_lookup.py
- Parseability checks verified against a real extraction of the stock
template: email/phone must survive as literal text (fontawesome icons
extract as harmless glyph-name noise like MOBILE-ALT/Envelope, but a
contact detail carried only by an icon or hyperlink is invisible to ATS),
no (cid:*) or replacement-character garbage, reading order matching
visual order, dates present
- Keyword coverage reuses the required/preferred list from Step 1, matched
in the posting's language, reported as covered / synonym-only /
missing-have-it / missing-gap. Honesty rule enforced: keywords the
profile genuinely supports get added to experience bullets; genuine gaps
stay visible, never stuffed
Integration: CLAUDE.md verification checklist section, ATS Parseability
guidance in 05-cv-templates.md, narrow Bash(pdftotext:*) entry in the
pre-approved permissions (keeping with the tightened scope from #27),
cv/*.txt gitignored (extraction is personal data; also deleted by the
step itself), and optional-dependency docs in README and SETUP.
The README has always invited users outside Denmark to build equivalents of
the four Danish portal CLI skills, but doing so meant reverse-engineering
.agents/skills/*/cli/ by hand. /add-portal turns that invitation into a
guided workflow:
- Interviews the user for the portal URL, skill name, market/language
(trigger phrases in the local language, like the Danish skills), and a
realistic test query
- Investigates the portal before writing code: search-URL pattern, result
structure (JSON API preferred over HTML), detail-page pattern, robots.txt
and access rules. Auth-walled portals are declined; portals with
restrictive terms get a prominent personal-use-only warning in the
generated SKILL.md (same as linkedin-search)
- Scaffolds from the canonical structure with linkedin-search as the
zero-dependency reference, enforcing the shared portal-skill contract:
search/detail commands, common flags, {meta, results} JSON shape, stderr
JSON errors, backoff on 429/5xx, chunked parsing
- Mandatory live test-run (search + detail + test suite) before registering
- Optionally wires the portal into /scrape via search-queries.md
The generator is country-agnostic; its output is market-specific and stays
in the user's fork, matching the repo policy that upstream remains a
universal template.
Docs: README (commands list, file structure, Job search tools section) and
SETUP.md (CLI install section pointer).
Users could already swap the stock moderncv/cover.cls templates, but only by
hand-editing the guidance in 05-cv-templates.md and 06-cover-letter-templates.md.
/add-template automates that:
- Interviews the user for the template's instructions: compile engine, fonts
(bundled files or system), style rules to preserve, and hard page limit
- Stores the template profile-agnostic ([PLACEHOLDER] tokens) under templates/
with a TEMPLATE.md manifest, so templates are safe to commit and share
- Runs a mandatory test compile with dummy data before registering anything
- Activates via a single managed block in 05/06, which /apply already reads,
so no changes to the /apply workflow are needed; --use default is a clean
revert to the stock templates
- --list and --use <name> manage multiple registered templates
Docs: README (commands list, file structure, LaTeX templates section) and
SETUP.md (compile section pointer).
* refactor: fold /setup_docs into /setup as third onboarding path
- Auto-detect documents/ at /setup Step 0; offer three paths (documents
folder, single CV import, interview).
- Inline document-driven merge logic into setup.md as Path A: read-before-
write, additive vs. conflicting bucket merge with per-conflict prompts,
inference labeling for behavioral and style files, STAR-stub generation
instead of fabrication.
- Step 3 substeps for skill files skip when Path A populated them; non-
skill substeps (CLAUDE.md, cv/main_example.tex, search-queries.md)
always run. Path C interview preserved verbatim. /setup --section <name>
update flow preserved.
- Delete .claude/commands/setup_docs.md.
- Update /reset prompts to point only at /setup. Update documents/README.md
to reference /setup throughout. Update README.md to drop the standalone
/setup_docs section and add upskill/ to the skills tree.
- Remove the trailing comma left in .claude/settings.local.json after the
PR #6 revert (was technically invalid JSON).
Single onboarding entry point. documents/ folder convention unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
* docs(README): finish readme alignment for the /setup fold
- Update onboarding-paths tip to reflect three paths (was "Either"
before /setup_docs landed in PR #6).
- Add documents/ and upskill/ entries to the file tree, both relied
on by the new /setup Path A and by /upskill respectively.
- Add a brief "Other commands" section briefly describing /expand and
/upskill so users discover them without having to read individual
command files. /reset stays in the existing "Starting over"
subsection, now linked from the new section.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adds four contributions from @Michael-Bach:
- /setup_docs - document-driven profile population from a documents/ folder (CV, LinkedIn export, diplomas, references, past applications). Idempotent merge with explicit additive vs. conflicting buckets and per-conflict prompts.
- /reset - typed-RESET confirmation gate for clearing profile data and/or documents folder contents.
- /expand - additive competency enrichment from documents and public URLs already in the profile (GitHub repos, portfolio sites), with web-searched syllabus lookups for named courses and certifications.
- /upskill - skill-gap analysis vs tracked jobs (or single URL), produces a prioritized heatmap and learning plan with year-tagged WebSearch queries.
Also adds the documents/ folder convention with README and gitignore entries for personal output files.
Closes#6
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) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Audit of master vs the branch found three real coverage gaps in the
reviewer prompt and drafter's revise step. This commit restores them
without giving up the Part A (JSON edits) + Part B (narrative) structure.
1. Action-oriented reframing is restored as a Part B narrative category.
The previous refactor folded reframing into Part A edit rationales, but
structural weakness (e.g. "the whole opening paragraph is passive") does
not fit a clean find-and-replace and needs prose critique to surface.
2. Tone and style phrasing is strengthened from "anything that conflicts
with 03-writing-style.md" back to the master's proactive "check
against... flag issues with tone, formality, or voice", with explicit
examples (cliches, hedging, over-humility, inconsistent register).
3. Step 4 revise guidance is expanded from "Apply Part A... Apply Part B
using judgment" (which could be read as a free-for-all) to an
enumerated sub-list under Part B covering every category the reviewer
returns: missed keywords, company angles, action-oriented reframing,
tone/style. Keeps the architectural change (Part A/B split) but
restores the master's explicit "apply every kind of fix" discipline.
Also adds a small instruction to the reviewer: produce each Part B
category even if the finding is "no issues" - silence on a category can
be mistaken for skipping it.
One remaining judgment call left unchanged in this commit: the reviewer
no longer reads 02-behavioral-profile.md. The refactor excluded it on the
reasoning that 03-writing-style.md carries the voice/tone rules. This is
a conscious trade-off; if voice-matching starts slipping in practice,
restoring 02 to the reviewer's reading list is a one-line fix.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adds a new Step 5 to the /apply workflow that compiles the CV (lualatex)
and cover letter (xelatex) and visually inspects the resulting PDFs before
presenting them to the user. This catches page-break failures that .tex
review cannot detect: orphaned cventry titles, cover letters spilling to
a second page, and bullet fonts not matching body text.
Also introduces relevance-weighted cutting as the rule for shrinking an
overflowing CV: score each candidate line by (a) relevance to the posting,
(b) uniqueness in the document, and (c) load-bearing role in the cover
letter, then cut the lowest-total-score line first, regardless of section.
This replaces the old static "cut oldest section first" heuristic, which
was wrong whenever a relevant older-role bullet competed with an
irrelevant recent-role bullet.
Bundled with the earlier pending token-efficiency improvements to the
/apply workflow (inline draft passing to the reviewer, scoped reviewer
file reads, single end-of-workflow verification pass).
Changes:
- .claude/commands/apply.md: new Step 5 (Compile & Inspect PDFs), renumber
old Step 5 to Step 6, update token-efficiency rules at top to reference
Step 6 for the verification checklist
- .claude/skills/job-application-assistant/05-cv-templates.md: switch
recommended compile engine from pdflatex to lualatex (pdflatex fails on
modern MiKTeX with fontawesome5 font-expansion errors), add
"Compile-and-Inspect Loop" section with needspace/enlargethispage
patterns, add "Relevance-weighted cutting" section
- .claude/skills/job-application-assistant/06-cover-letter-templates.md:
add compile command, add "Compile-and-Inspect Loop", document the
"\lettercontent{} + itemize" pitfall and the required font-matching
Raleway-Medium wrapper fix
- CLAUDE.md: add "Compiled PDF verification (MANDATORY)" checklist items
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Yuan Chen