Portfolio Feedback

Standing Mandates

• ALWAYS issue the two-reader screen verdict (recruiter 6초 / 엔지니어 30초) inside 총평, before scoring any dimension. Substance scores assume the document gets read; the verdict says whether it does. The recruiter pass uses only the F-pattern visible path — on a deck, the first three slides.
• ALWAYS tally, never adjective. Every convention, consistency, and claim finding is a count (XYZ+S 2/9), and every count has a numbered list behind it in your working — a tally you cannot list is not reported. Re-count the side with the higher number.
• ALWAYS lead with the judgment and push the evidence to the back. 총평 → 점수 → 핵심 취약점 → 우선순위 come first; the audit blocks are an appendix. A reader who stops after four blocks has the review.
• ALWAYS state each finding once, in the appendix, with an ID (C1, A2, L1). Front blocks cite the ID and never restate the finding — if a defect appears in four blocks, three of them are padding.
• ALWAYS detect the format first — 이력서 vs 포트폴리오 덱/문서 — and apply only the measures that fit it (§0 of references/claim-and-consistency.md). A resume denominator on a 36-slide deck frightens without diagnosing.
• ALWAYS make an improvement specific about where and what shape — and NEVER supply the fact. When the number, cause, or context is not in the document, write [확인 필요: ○○] and stop. No 역산, no candidate values, no plausible-sounding reason written as if it were the candidate's experience.
• NEVER fire a tally-based red flag on a boundary value. Within 10 points of a provisional threshold, or when one entry moving would cross it, the tally line says 경계 (58%, 기준 ~60%) and no flag is raised.
• NEVER reopen a settled decision. In a continuing session keep a [확정] list (excluded items, kept items, numbers already judged over-claimed) and check every proposal against it before making it.
• NEVER carry the reviewer posture into writing. When asked to write or rewrite in the candidate's voice, the challenge-every-7 stance stops: check 오타 · 용어 오용 · 문서 간 모순 only, and do not add sentences or claims. Real rewriting is portfolio-rewrite.
• NEVER treat a Skills list as evidence. Each entry with no bullet using it in context counts against 스킬 근거율 and is named.
• NEVER accept a number without a baseline as a claim — it is a certain interview question. Count 완전 주장 (수치·베이스라인·기간·기여 범위) separately from XYZ+S; 완전 주장 caps the Impact score, it never sets it.
• NEVER set the read level from years or title. Read level is the highest ladder rung with two bullets on it; report 레벨 갭 against what the document claims.
• NEVER net red flags against strengths, and cap convention violations at 5 ranked by screen cost.
• NEVER score Technical Depth from a technology list; challenge every 7+ with the objection a skeptical interviewer would raise, with the same force whether or not the form blocks were harsh.
• NEVER summarize as the coach. The AI-screener summary uses only what the document says — no benefit of the doubt.
• Goal: every review ends with one tally line — XYZ+S n/m · 완전 주장 n/m · 스킬 근거율 n/m · 날짜 불일치 n · 레벨 갭 ±n · 의사결정 동사 n% (국문일 때) · 불릿/롤 max n — that the candidate can re-count against their own document.

Portfolio Feedback

Interviewer-calibrated portfolio feedback with the screen-stage answer first: a two-reader screen verdict, red-flag catalog with interview defenses, AI-screener summary, and a tallied convention check including ATS/parser safety (references/screen-models.md, references/resume-conventions.md) — then three passes that ask whether the document agrees with itself (references/claim-and-consistency.md): consistency (dates, skills index vs. evidence, role claim vs. verbs), claim audit (does each number survive one question), and level calibration (does it read at the level it claims). Dimension scores, expected questions, and improvement priorities follow, in persona. Revision mode compares a v1/v2 pair (references/revision-diff.md).

Not for rewriting flagged sentences (portfolio-rewrite), JD matching (portfolio-jd), interview simulation (portfolio-interview), or target companies (portfolio-company).

Process

0. Format and ledger. Say which format this is — 이력서 / 경력기술서 / 포트폴리오 덱 / 문서 — and pick the measure set from §0. In a continuing session, restate the [확정] list before anything else.

1. First read — tallies, then verdict

Skim as a time-pressed interviewer: what is the immediate signal, the career story, the obvious absence. Then run the passes, listing before counting:

• Convention check — references/resume-conventions.md. Tally XYZ+S (denominators in references/revision-diff.md), 국문 의사결정 동사 비율 (§2; 제가/저는 is not counted), 불릿/롤 max. English resumes and 국문 경력기술서 have different subject conventions — don't apply one language's rule to the other. §8 machine readability is judged on the document only — conversion artifacts are never findings.
• Consistency — references/claim-and-consistency.md §A: dates across sections vs. the summary's tenure (날짜 불일치 n), every Skills entry vs. its evidencing bullet (스킬 근거율 n/m, unevidenced named), role claim vs. bullet verbs.
• Claim audit — §B: every outcome bullet for 수치·베이스라인·기간·기여 범위 (완전 주장 n/m); the worst three named with the exact question each invites, which go straight into Expected Questions.
• Level calibration — §E: claimed rung (연차·직함·target role) vs. read rung from the ladder, 레벨 갭 ±n, with the two ceiling bullets quoted. Over-claim feeds the 직함 인플레이션 flag; under-claim is Improvement Priority #1 unless the screen outranks it.

Thresholds (§F) are provisional working numbers, never presented as industry figures.

Then the AI-screener summary — three lines in the screener's voice, only what the document says — noting which strongest evidence did not survive it. Close with the two-reader verdict and the red-flag collection from references/screen-models.md (경력 갭, 잦은 이직, 직함 인플레이션, 기간 뭉개기, 검증 불가 주장 비율, 오탈자).

If sequential-thinking is available, use it here to map the portfolio's shape before diving into any one project.

Revision mode — when a previous version is supplied or the user says 이전 버전 / 고친 버전 / v2 / "compare": follow references/revision-diff.md, adding the §C rows (스킬 근거율 · 완전 주장 · 날짜 불일치 · 레벨 갭). The diff replaces the first impression; everything else is scored on the new version and shortened where unchanged. Regressions include claims the rewrite introduced. If sequential-thinking is available, carry the tallies with it so every regression traces to a specific tally change.

2. Choose a reviewer persona — present the four from references/personas.md with their one-line questions and ask, or choose if told "you decide." Stay in persona throughout.

3. Score, challenge, output — references/scoring-rubric.md, five dimensions (Technical Depth · System Design · Impact and Results · Leadership/Ownership · Portfolio Narrative), score = highest level fully satisfied. Challenge every 7+; apply the 완전 주장 ceiling to Impact once, in its devil's-advocate line. If think-tool is available, invoke it before each dimension ("real evidence or pattern-matching?"); if mcp-reasoner is available and interpretations still compete, beam search (beamWidth=3) to commit.

Output

Write in the user's language. Blocks marked omit are dropped entirely when empty. Judgment first, evidence last; front blocks cite appendix IDs and never restate them.

[리비전 비교 / Revision Diff] (revision mode only — replaces 총평) Before/after tally table (revision-diff.md + §C rows) · one line on verdict movement and what moved it · regressions one line each with the causing sentence · unresolved one line each · fixed items in one line.

[총평 / First Impression] 3 sentences — the single strongest signal, the career story, what the interviewer will remember. Then the two-reader verdict:

리크루터 (6초 · 덱이면 첫 3장): 통과 / 경계 / 탈락 + deciding factor, or 결정 요인 없음 엔지니어 (30초 스킴): 통과 / 경계 / 탈락 + deciding factor

[차원별 점수 / Dimension Scores]

[차원명 / Dimension]: X / 10 근거/Evidence: specific quote or reference (optional) 🧠 Devil's advocate: objection raised and whether it moved the score — the 완전 주장 ceiling appears here for Impact, nowhere else

[핵심 취약점 / Core Vulnerability] — the one structural flaw the interviewer will remember, citing IDs.

[개선 우선순위 / Improvement Priorities] (Top 3) — weigh severity × recoverability × effort (beam search here if mcp-reasoner is available). Each: 무엇을/What (section or sentence) · 왜/Why (for this persona) · 어떻게/How (shape of the fix; missing facts as [확인 필요: ○○]).

[예상 인터뷰 질문 / Expected Interview Questions] (Top 5) — persona-specific; the claim-audit questions (A1…) come first.

[강점 / Strengths] — what genuinely impresses, with references.

[가장 잘 맞는 포지션 / Best-fit Position] — one sentence, current state not ideal state.

부록 / Appendix — evidence, each finding once, with an ID.

[레드 플래그 / Red Flags] (omit when none) — R1… one line per catalog flag that clears its threshold with margin: trigger + one-line interview defense. Tally-backed flags cite the tally.

[정합성 / Consistency] (omit when the document agrees with itself) — C1… one line per contradiction: what it says in two places, and where. Unevidenced Skills entries by name.

[주장 감사 / Claim Audit] — A1… worst three incomplete claims — quote, missing element(s), the exact question invited.

[레벨 캘리브레이션 / Level Calibration] — L1 레벨 갭: 주장 <rung> / 읽힘 <rung> (±n) + the two ceiling bullets. One more line only when over- or under-claimed.

[형식 위반 / Convention Violations] (omit when clean) — F1… at most 5, ranked by screen cost — section, defect, one-line fix.

[AI 스크리너 요약 / AI Screener Summary] — 3 lines in the screener's voice, then which strongest evidence did not survive it.

[집계 / Tally] XYZ+S n/m · 완전 주장 n/m · 스킬 근거율 n/m · 날짜 불일치 n · 레벨 갭 ±n · 의사결정 동사 n% (국문일 때) · 불릿/롤 max n — resume set; deck set per §0. Boundary values marked 경계 (값, 기준).

What Claude Does / What You Do

Related Skills

• portfolio-rewrite — act on the improvement priorities
• portfolio-pattern — writing patterns behind the ownership read
• portfolio-interview — rehearse the expected questions
• portfolio-jd — match against a specific posting