Comparejobs

Configuration

Read .jobops/config.json. If missing, stop with:

JOBOPS NOT CONFIGURED Run /jobops:setup to initialize your workspace.

Use config.directories.<key> for all file paths in this skill. Use config.preferences.cultural_profile if this skill generates resume-style content. Use config.preferences.default_jurisdiction if this skill has jurisdiction-sensitive logic (crisis/legal skills accept --jurisdiction=<ISO-3166-2> to override).

Your Task

Compare 2-4 assessment files produced by /assessjob (one per application folder under {config.directories.applications_root}) — or ideal-role archetype files produced by /idealjob — to analyze candidate performance across different roles, identify patterns, and provide strategic hiring recommendations.

Each {{ARGn}} is either:

• an application slug ({Company}_{Role}_{Date}) — the skill loads {applications_root}/{{ARGn}}/assessment/assessment.md, or
• a direct file path — any argument containing / or ending in .md is read as-is (e.g., {career_analysis}/idealjob_{YYYYMMDD}_anchor.md). /idealjob archetype files carry assessjob-compatible score keys (overall_score: <XX/200>, normalized_score: <XX%>) and compare like any assessment. Their synthetic: true front matter MUST be called out in the report (label the column/row "synthetic benchmark") so an ideal-role benchmark is never mistaken for a real application.

WORKFLOW ARCHITECTURE

Phase 1 (Parallel batch):   Load all 2-4 assessment files simultaneously
Phase 2 (Sequential):       Extract and normalize scoring data
Phase 3 (Sequential):       Perform comparative analysis + strategic insights
Phase 4 (Sequential):       Generate report → Save

Dependency Rules:

• All assessment file reads are INDEPENDENT - load in single parallel batch
• Extraction can begin as soon as all files are loaded
• Analysis and report are sequential cognitive work

PROGRESS TRACKING (MANDATORY)

Before starting any work, create all tasks for user visibility:

Task Update Rules:

• Mark each task in_progress BEFORE starting work on it
• Mark each task completed AFTER finishing it

YAML FRONT MATTER

Prepend the comparison output with:

---
assessments:
  - {{ARG1}}
  - {{ARG2}}
  # Append {{ARG3}} and {{ARG4}} if provided
generated_by: /comparejobs
generated_on: <ISO8601 timestamp>
output_type: assessment_comparison
status: draft
version: 1.0
---

Replace the placeholder comment with the additional assessment filenames you compare. Insert before the report heading and update on reruns.

PHASE 1: LOAD INPUTS (Parallel batch)

Task: Mark task 1 in_progress.

Read ALL assessment files in a single parallel batch using multiple Read tool calls. Resolve each {{ARGn}} first:

• If {{ARGn}} contains / or ends in .md, read it directly as a file path (e.g., an /idealjob archetype file).
• Otherwise read {config.directories.applications_root}/{{ARGn}}/assessment/assessment.md.

Load {{ARG1}} and {{ARG2}} always; {{ARG3}} and {{ARG4}} if provided.

CRITICAL: Use parallel Read tool calls for all files in a single message. Do NOT read them sequentially.

Task: Mark task 1 completed.

PHASE 2: EXTRACT DATA

Task: Mark task 2 in_progress.

Extract key information from each assessment:

• Candidate Information: Name, role applied for, company
• Front Matter Keys: overall_score (XX/200), normalized_score (XX%), role_variant (Technical IC | People Manager | Executive), and synthetic if present
• Scoring Breakdown: Per-category raw points, variant-adjusted maximum, and percentage for the five rubric categories (Skills Inventory, Experience Relevance, Demonstrated Impact, Credentials, Fit & Readiness). Read these from the assessment body's category scoring sections — front matter carries only the overall score. If a category's numbers are absent from the body, mark its cells not reported; never invent them.
• Strengths & Gaps: Key strengths and areas of concern
• Hiring Recommendations: Final recommendations and rationale
• Assessment Date: When evaluation was conducted

Legacy inputs: if an assessment carries a bare 0–100 overall_score (no /200 suffix), treat that value as its normalized percentage and compare it at the overall level only — its category cells in the report read N/A (legacy scale).

Task: Mark task 2 completed.

PHASE 3: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

3.1 Score Comparison

Task: Mark task 3 in_progress.

Conduct multi-dimensional comparison across:

Score Comparison

• Overall scores and rankings
• Category-wise performance patterns
• Consistency across different role requirements
• Score distribution and variance analysis

Role Suitability Analysis

• Best-fit roles based on skill alignment
• Transferable skills across positions
• Role-specific strengths and limitations
• Growth trajectory implications

Competitive Positioning

• Relative candidate strengths
• Market positioning against role requirements
• Differentiation factors
• Risk/reward profiles

Pattern Recognition

• Consistent performance areas
• Recurring gaps or concerns
• Cultural fit trends
• Experience leverage opportunities

Task: Mark task 3 completed.

3.2 Strategic Insights

Task: Mark task 4 in_progress.

Analyze deeper implications:

• Career Trajectory: How roles complement candidate's progression
• Skill Development: Areas for professional growth
• Market Positioning: How candidate compares across different markets/roles
• Strategic Recommendations: Optimal role selection and negotiation insights

Task: Mark task 4 completed.

PHASE 4: REPORT AND SAVE

4.1 Create Comprehensive Comparison Report

Task: Mark task 5 in_progress.

# Job Assessment Comparison Report
**Analysis Date:** [Date]
**Assessments Compared:** [Number] assessments across [Number] roles/companies

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentence overview highlighting key findings and strategic recommendations]

## Assessment Overview

| Assessment | Role | Company | Variant | Overall Score | Recommendation | Date |
|------------|------|---------|---------|---------------|-----------------|------|
| {{ARG1}} | [Role] | [Company] | [Variant] | [XXX]/200 ([XX%]) | [Recommendation] | [Date] |
| {{ARG2}} | [Role] | [Company] | [Variant] | [XXX]/200 ([XX%]) | [Recommendation] | [Date] |
| {{ARG3}} | [Role] | [Company] | [Variant] | [XXX]/200 ([XX%]) | [Recommendation] | [Date] |
| {{ARG4}} | [Role] | [Company] | [Variant] | [XXX]/200 ([XX%]) | [Recommendation] | [Date] |

For any input whose front matter has `synthetic: true`, append ` (synthetic benchmark)` to its Company cell in this table and prefix its name with `Synthetic:` everywhere it appears in the report.

## Detailed Score Comparison

### Overall Performance Rankings

Rank by `normalized_score` — the percentage is the cross-assessment comparison basis; raw points are context.

1. **[Highest Scoring Role]**: [XXX]/200 ([XX%]) - [Company] - [Brief rationale]
2. **[Second Highest]**: [XXX]/200 ([XX%]) - [Company] - [Brief rationale]
3. **[Third]**: [XXX]/200 ([XX%]) - [Company] - [Brief rationale]
4. **[Lowest]**: [XXX]/200 ([XX%]) - [Company] - [Brief rationale]

### Category Performance Analysis

Category maxima vary by role variant (e.g., Skills Inventory is /60 for a Technical IC assessment but /40 for People Manager), so **compare on percentages, not raw points**. `[Max]` is each assessment's variant-adjusted category maximum from its rubric. For legacy 0–100 inputs, every category cell reads `N/A (legacy scale)`.

#### 1. Skills Inventory
| Role/Company | Points | Variant Max | % | Analysis |
|--------------|--------|-------------|---|----------|
| [Role 1] | [X] | [Max] | [XX%] | [Strength/Gap summary] |
| [Role 2] | [X] | [Max] | [XX%] | [Strength/Gap summary] |

**Key Insights:**
- [Consistent technical strengths across roles]
- [Skills gaps that appear across multiple assessments]
- [Role-specific technical advantages]

#### 2. Experience Relevance
| Role/Company | Points | Variant Max | % | Analysis |
|--------------|--------|-------------|---|----------|
| [Role 1] | [X] | [Max] | [XX%] | [Experience alignment] |
| [Role 2] | [X] | [Max] | [XX%] | [Experience alignment] |

**Key Insights:**
- [Best experience matches and why]
- [Experience transfer opportunities]

#### 3. Demonstrated Impact
| Role/Company | Points | Variant Max | % | Analysis |
|--------------|--------|-------------|---|----------|
| [Role 1] | [X] | [Max] | [XX%] | [Impact evidence] |
| [Role 2] | [X] | [Max] | [XX%] | [Impact evidence] |

#### 4. Credentials
| Role/Company | Points | Variant Max | % | Analysis |
|--------------|--------|-------------|---|----------|
| [Role 1] | [X] | [Max] | [XX%] | [Credential match] |
| [Role 2] | [X] | [Max] | [XX%] | [Credential match] |

#### 5. Fit & Readiness
| Role/Company | Points | Variant Max | % | Analysis |
|--------------|--------|-------------|---|----------|
| [Role 1] | [X] | [Max] | [XX%] | [Fit assessment] |
| [Role 2] | [X] | [Max] | [XX%] | [Fit assessment] |

## Strategic Analysis

### Candidate Strengths Across Roles
- [Strength 1]: Evidence from [X] assessments
- [Strength 2]: Consistent high scoring in [category]
- [Strength 3]: Competitive advantage

### Recurring Gaps & Development Areas
- [Gap 1]: Identified in [X] assessments, requiring [development approach]
- [Gap 2]: Could limit success in [specific contexts]

### Role-Specific Advantages
#### Best Fit: [Role Name] at [Company]
- **Why it's the strongest match**: [Detailed reasoning]
- **Score advantage**: [X] percentage points above the average normalized score
- **Success probability**: [High/Medium/Low] with rationale

#### Alternative Strong Fit: [Role Name] at [Company]
- **Positioning rationale**: [Why second choice]
- **Trade-offs**: [What candidate gives up vs. top choice]

### Market Positioning Insights
- **Salary negotiation position**: [Strong/Moderate/Weak]
- **Competitive advantage**: [Unique value propositions]

## Interview Strategy Comparison

### Common Interview Focus Areas
- [Focus Area 1]: [Why important across roles]
- [Focus Area 2]: [Validation needed]

### Role-Specific Interview Priorities
#### [Role 1] - [Company 1]
- **Must validate**: [Specific areas]
- **Opportunity to highlight**: [Strongest areas]
- **Risk mitigation**: [Address concerns]

## Strategic Recommendations

### Optimal Strategy
1. **Primary Target**: [Role/Company] - [Reasoning]
2. **Secondary Option**: [Role/Company] - [Reasoning]
3. **Development Play**: [Role/Company] - [Reasoning]

### Negotiation Positioning
- **Strongest negotiating position**: [Role]
- **Compensation expectations**: [Insights]

### Risk Management
- **Highest risk scenario**: [Role/situation]
- **Mitigation strategies**: [Approaches]

## Implementation Roadmap

### Immediate Actions (Next 2 weeks)
1. [Specific action]
2. [Interview preparation focus]
3. [Research or networking]

### Medium-term Development (Next 3-6 months)
1. [Skill development]
2. [Experience building]

### Long-term Career Planning (6-18 months)
1. [Strategic role progression]
2. [Professional development]

## Appendix
### Assessment Scoring Summary
[Detailed table showing all scores across the five rubric categories — points, variant max, and percentage per assessment]

### Key Evidence Mapping
[Cross-reference of major claims/achievements across assessments]

Task: Mark task 5 completed.

4.2 Save Comparison Report

Task: Mark task 6 in_progress.

Save the comparative analysis to: {config.directories.career_analysis}/comparison_{YYYYMMDD}_{slug}.md, where {slug} is built from the companies being compared, lowercased and joined with _vs_ (e.g., google_vs_meta, or google_vs_meta_vs_amazon for 3+). For an input with no company (e.g., an /idealjob archetype), use its input filename stem instead (e.g., google_vs_idealjob_20260604_anchor).

Task: Mark task 6 completed.

Usage Guidelines

When to Use This Command

• Candidate is applying to multiple roles simultaneously
• Need to prioritize multiple opportunities
• Strategic career planning and role selection
• Comparative analysis for negotiation positioning
• Understanding transferable skills across roles
• Identifying consistent patterns in assessments

Best Practices

1. Minimum 2 assessments: Ensure meaningful comparison
2. Recent assessments: Use assessments from similar time periods
3. Diverse roles: Compare different role types/companies for insights
4. Complete analysis: Don't skip sections - full analysis provides best insights
5. Evidence-based: Reference specific scores and evidence from assessments
6. Strategic focus: Emphasize actionable insights and recommendations

Limitations

• Comparisons only as good as underlying assessment quality
• Cultural fit may vary significantly by company even for similar roles
• Market conditions may change between assessment dates
• Candidate preferences and priorities not captured in assessments

Example Usage

claude /comparejobs JLL_VP_Office_Leasing_2025-09-25 Canerector_Vice_President_Real_Estate_2025-09-26

# Benchmark a real application against an /idealjob archetype (direct file path)
claude /comparejobs JLL_VP_Office_Leasing_2025-09-25 Career_Analysis/idealjob_20260604_anchor.md

(Each argument is either an application slug under {config.directories.applications_root} or a direct assessment-file path — see Your Task.)