Job Match

/job-match — Requirement–evidence analysis

Break the JD into verifiable requirements and check each against evidence that already exists in career/facts.md. The output is not a match score; it is: which requirements have evidence, which are merely unwritten, which are real gaps, and whether the application is worth the time.

Inputs

1. A concrete JD — text, link, or screenshot. A title alone is not enough; ask for the requirements. If jobs-mcp is available and the link is a Greenhouse / Lever / Ashby posting, fetch it with get_job.
2. career/facts.md (truth), career/blocks.md (wording), career/stories.md (depth). Never add a fact that is not there.
3. The user's filters in career/targets.yaml (filters:) and career/answers.yaml (authorization, experience, preferences).

Keep the capture date. If the JD is a fragment, say what is missing.

Method

1. Extract responsibilities, hard requirements, core competencies, nice-to-haves, application constraints. Merge duplicates; ignore marketing copy.
2. For each requirement, find direct evidence and record where (facts.md § …) and the personal boundary (user vs. team).
3. One status each:
   • MATCHED — a specific, expandable fact exists.
   • WORDING GAP — the user did it; no resume version says it. Cheapest fix → /great-resume.
   • THIN EVIDENCE — hinted at; would not survive a follow-up.
   • REAL GAP — facts do not satisfy it, or the user confirmed they have not done it.
   • UNCONFIRMED — a decisive fact is missing; do not guess.
4. Hard constraints first, separately; strengths never offset them. Work authorization and sponsorship (from answers.yaml); country-restricted remote; onsite / hybrid vs. the user's work model; years required vs. years_default / years_excluding_internships; degree or certification; compensation vs. salary_floor; level (read the YOE range, not the title).
5. Verdict: APPLY, APPLY AFTER PREP, APPLY WITH CAUTION, SKIP, plus the two or three pieces of evidence that decided it. No percentages.
6. Name the resume master (which existing folder to copy) and which company-line anchors apply.

Deliverable — same shape as career/application/03-Job-Description.md

1. Verdict — one sentence.
2. Requirement–evidence matrix — | Requirement | Weight | Evidence (file § section) | Status | Risk / next step |.
3. Hard constraints — met / not met / unconfirmed, each.
4. Priority fixes — ≤ 5, tagged reword / add evidence / build skill.
5. Strategy — apply or not, which master, open questions.
6. Hand-off — only if asked: the prompt for the next skill.

The evidence column must point at a section, project, artifact, PR, or explicit user statement. Nothing found → not provided.

Boundaries

• Adjacent tech is not the same tech; say "transferable", keep the status honest.
• "Preferred / familiar with" is not a hard requirement unless the responsibilities say so.
• Do not reject on one missing keyword; do not accept on keyword overlap.
• Analysis authorises nothing else: no file edits, no forms, no submissions.