# Portfolio Company > Use when someone wants to know which companies or company types their portfolio would appeal to — without a specific JD in hand. Triggers on: "which companies fit my portfolio", "where should I apply", "어느 회사에 잘 맞아?", "네이버 지원하려는데 어때?", "어디 써볼 만해?". - Skill: `newkayak12/portfolio-company` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add newkayak12/portfolio-company` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/newkayak12/portfolio-company/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: newkayak12 (https://skillmd.com/u/newkayak12) - Updated: 2026-09-21 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/newkayak12/portfolio-company --- ## Standing Mandates - ALWAYS read company signals (engineering blog, job postings, tech stack) before scoring fit. - ALWAYS distinguish 'can apply here' from 'strong mutual fit here'. - NEVER recommend applying to a company based solely on name recognition. - NEVER score fit without knowing the candidate's non-negotiables (location, domain, stack). # Portfolio × Company Fit Analyzer ## When to Use / When Not to Use **Use when:** - Deciding where to apply without a specific JD in hand - Wanting a fit score across multiple company types at once - Needing honest feedback on where this portfolio would struggle **Not for:** - You have a specific job posting (use portfolio-jd) - You want to rewrite portfolio sections (use portfolio-rewrite) - You want overall feedback on portfolio quality (use portfolio-feedback) ## Process 1. **Characterize the portfolio** — what type of engineer does it most clearly represent? what are the strongest and weakest signals? 2. **Plan analysis across company types** — identify which types are relevant; what each actually looks for vs. states 3. **Score each company type** — fit score (X/10) + green flags + red flags + one concrete improvement action 4. **Name Top 2 fits and worst fits** — where this portfolio is most and least competitive 5. **Produce positioning suggestions** — if the target isn't the natural fit, what 2-3 changes would move the needle? ## Standalone Inputs Provide: your portfolio (paste or describe key sections), and optionally any specific company names you're considering. ## What Claude Does / What You Do | Claude | You | |--------|-----| | Characterizes your portfolio type (platform builder, product engineer, etc.) | Decides which companies to target | | Scores fit across 5 company types with specific evidence | Validates fit signals with network contacts at target companies | | Names Top 2 best-fit and worst-fit company types | Makes final application decisions | | Recommends 2-3 portfolio changes to improve fit for a target type | Does the actual relationship building and applying | ## Related Skills - `../portfolio-jd/SKILL.md` — once you've chosen a target, do JD-specific gap analysis - `../portfolio-rewrite/SKILL.md` — improve weak sections after identifying positioning gaps - `../portfolio-feedback/SKILL.md` — overall assessment before company fit analysis --- ## Stage 1 — Characterize the Portfolio (Think Tool) Before doing any company analysis, call `think` to build a clear profile of what this portfolio signals: - What kind of engineer does this portfolio most clearly represent? (platform builder, product engineer, infrastructure specialist, generalist, etc.) - What is the strongest signal in the portfolio? (scale experience, ownership, depth, breadth, communication quality?) - What is the weakest or most ambiguous signal? - What does this portfolio *not* say — and would a particular company care? > 🧠 **Fit note**: Record the core portfolio profile here. Everything downstream depends on this read. --- ## Stage 2 — Company Type Framework (Sequential Thinking) Call `sequentialthinking` to plan the analysis across company types. Think through: - Which company categories are relevant for a 5+ year Korean backend engineer? - What does each type actually look for vs. what they say they look for? - Which types are this portfolio's natural fit vs. a stretch? --- ## Company Type Profiles Evaluate fit against the following categories. Adjust which ones are included based on what the user asks — don't force irrelevant categories. --- ### 대형 플랫폼 (네이버, 카카오, 라인, 쿠팡 등) **What they actually look for:** - System scale experience (millions of users, high QPS, distributed systems) - Technical depth and ability to own complex infra decisions - Evidence of working within large engineering organizations (process, code review culture, RFC/design doc experience) - Stability and reliability focus **Green flags**: specific scale numbers, distributed systems experience, performance optimization with before/after metrics **Red flags**: only small-scale projects, startup-style "we did everything" without depth, no system design evidence --- ### 성장기 스타트업 (Series B–D, 50–300명) **What they actually look for:** - Ownership and initiative beyond assigned tasks - Ability to make good-enough decisions fast - Cross-functional collaboration, not just backend silo - Evidence of building something from scratch or scaling it meaningfully **Green flags**: founding engineer experience, greenfield architecture ownership, business impact language **Red flags**: only large-company execution work, no initiative signals, heavy process dependency --- ### 핀테크 / 엔터프라이즈 (토스, 카카오뱅크, SI 계열 등) **What they actually look for:** - Reliability, compliance awareness, and risk management mindset - Long-term system maintainability and documentation discipline - Incident handling and operational maturity - Consistent track record over flashy projects **Green flags**: SLA/SLO experience, incident runbooks, security awareness, payment/financial system experience **Red flags**: hype-driven tech choices without rationale, no mention of operational concerns, short tenure on any project --- ### 글로벌 테크 (Google, Meta, Amazon, Databricks 등 한국 오피스 또는 해외 지원) **What they actually look for:** - Algorithmic and systems thinking demonstrable beyond the portfolio - Clear technical communication (design docs, proposals, cross-team alignment) - Impact at scope (did work affect many users, many teams, or many systems?) - Leadership even without title **Green flags**: technical writing samples, cross-org impact, mentorship, open source contributions **Red flags**: no evidence of technical communication, individual-only work, no demonstration of scope beyond own team --- ### 개발 도구 / 플랫폼 / 오픈소스 팀 **What they actually look for:** - API and developer experience intuition - Public technical communication (blog, talks, OSS contributions) - Abstraction and interface design thinking - Empathy for other engineers as users **Green flags**: OSS contributions, technical blog, API design examples, developer tooling work **Red flags**: entirely internal product work, no public technical footprint, no developer-facing work experience --- ## Output Structure Write in Korean. Use this structure: --- **[이 포트폴리오의 핵심 신호]** In 3–5 sentences: what kind of engineer does this portfolio most clearly represent? This sets the frame for everything below. --- **[회사 유형별 핏 분석]** For each relevant company type: **[회사 유형명]** - **핏 점수**: X/10 - **이 유형에서 강한 이유**: [specific evidence from portfolio] - **이 유형에서 약한 이유**: [specific gap or mismatch] - **지원 전 보완할 것**: [one concrete action] Insert `🧠 Fit note` where the fit score required a non-obvious judgment call. --- **[가장 잘 맞는 회사 유형 Top 2]** Where this portfolio would be most competitive, and why. --- **[피해야 할 회사 유형]** Where this portfolio would likely struggle — not because the person is unqualified, but because the portfolio doesn't speak that company's language yet. --- **[포트폴리오 포지셔닝 제안]** If the candidate is targeting a specific company type that isn't their current best fit, what 2–3 changes to the portfolio would move the needle most? --- ## Rules - Be honest about poor fits. It's more useful than false encouragement. - Tie every fit judgment to something specific in the portfolio — not general impressions. - If the user names a specific company, reason about that company's actual engineering culture, not just their reputation. - Use `think` when a fit score is genuinely unclear — especially when portfolio strengths and company expectations only partially overlap.