# Portfolio Feedback

> Use when someone shares a developer portfolio and wants interviewer-grade feedback: screen verdict, whether numbers and skills hold up, whether it reads at the claimed level. Triggers: "포트폴리오 피드백 해줘", "서류 통과할까", "숫자 근거 있어?", "시니어로 읽혀?", "고친 버전 비교".

- Skill: `newkayak12/portfolio-feedback` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 17 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add newkayak12/portfolio-feedback`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/newkayak12/portfolio-feedback/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-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`](references/resume-conventions.md). Tally XYZ+S (denominators in [`references/revision-diff.md`](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`](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`](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`](references/personas.md) with their one-line questions and ask, or choose if told "you decide." Stay in persona throughout.

| Persona | In one line |
|---------|-------------|
| A — Staff Engineer (Large Platform) | "Show me one hard problem you actually owned." |
| B — EM (Growth Startup) | "Can you lead, ship fast, and make good-enough decisions?" |
| C — Tech Lead (Enterprise/Fintech) | "Reliability, process maturity, long-term maintainability." |
| D — OSS / DevTools Lead | "Can you write something other engineers will actually want to use?" |

**3. Score, challenge, output** — [`references/scoring-rubric.md`](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

| Claude | You |
|---|---|
| Lists and counts every tally before reporting it; states each finding once, in the appendix | Re-count one tally against your document — if it's wrong, say so and the review is redone |
| Leaves missing facts as `[확인 필요]` instead of writing a plausible one | Fill the blanks — only you know the number |
| Judges the screen before scoring, in persona throughout | Pick the persona, or say "you decide" |
| Applies provisional thresholds as working numbers and says so | Bring a previous version for revision mode |

## 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