claude-resume-kit: Skill for Claude Code

/critique

User input: $ARGUMENTS

Parse $ARGUMENTS:

• Session file path (e.g., output/Acme/session_acme_engineer.md) → read session file, derive .tex paths from Output Files
• .tex file path(s) + JD source (existing format) → backward compatible
• Session name (e.g., acme_engineer) → find session file via derivation

If no CL .tex provided or found in session file, critique resume/CV alone (Part 7 adjustments noted below).

---

Safety Rules

Accuracy > Relevance > Impact > ATS > Brevity

Read config.md Provenance Flags. Verify every claim against that table. Check config.md KB Corrections Log — do not flag corrected items as errors. Use the email from config.md Personal Info — flag if a different email appears in output. FIXED sections (from config.md FIXED Sections) are template-locked — do not flag for editing. Flag only VARIABLE sections.

---

User Input During Execution

If the user provides feedback, corrections, or suggestions at any point:

1. Acknowledge the input immediately
2. If it changes scoring criteria or focus: adjust the critique accordingly
3. Never restart — resume from current position

---

Startup

Read resume_builder/reference/shared_ops.md — Fresh Session Startup + Session File Derivation. Read CLAUDE.md — check Active Sessions and KB Corrections. Read config.md — load Provenance Flags, FIXED Sections, email. Find and read the session file for the .tex being critiqued (use derivation protocol from shared_ops.md).

Recovery check:

• If CL not DONE in session file → "CL not yet generated. Run /make-cl first."
• If Critique: CURRENT → "Already critiqued (score X/100). Re-run? Waiting for confirmation."
• If Critique: STALE → "Edits made since last critique. Re-critiquing."
• If Critique: PENDING → proceed

---

Protocol

1. Read session file — specifically note:
   • Company Context → reviewer persona, "why this company"
   • Framing Strategy → intentional reframing decisions (flag only execution inconsistencies, not the strategy itself)
   • Cover Letter Plan → CL structure rationale
   • Critique Context → reviewer persona, competitive landscape, domain vocabulary
   • If session file lacks Company Context or Critique Context: do 1-2 web searches to fill gaps
2. Read resume_builder/reference/critique_framework.md
3. Read resume_builder/support/ai_fingerprint_rules.md — use Section 6 checklist in Part 7 verification
4. Read the .tex file(s) — derive paths from session file Output Files, or from $ARGUMENTS
5. Read the JD (path from $ARGUMENTS or session file)
6. Read the relevant bundle (resume_builder/bundles/bundle_[role_type].md — from session file)
7. Run char count:

   python3 resume_builder/helpers/char_count.py -f [resume|cv] [file.tex]
   

8. Compile and visually verify:

   pdflatex -interaction=nonstopmode -output-directory=output/<FolderName> [file.tex]
   

   Use the Read tool to view the compiled PDF — check orphans, page fill, header wrapping. If compile fails: note "COMPILE FAILED — visual checks could not be verified" in Part 8.
9. If a prior critique exists (output/<FolderName>/critique_<name>.md): read it and note previous score. 8b. Paper Hook Verification: If the CL cites named papers, PIs, programs, or publications, web-search to verify title, journal, year, and PI affiliation. Flag factual errors as Tier 1 fixes.