Resume Evaluation

Resume Evaluation

Purpose

Evaluate a candidate CV/resume against a target role or job description and produce a practical, evidence-based hiring recommendation. Optimize for decision quality and interview usefulness rather than CV summarization.

Inputs

Required:

• Candidate CV/resume
• Target role, role title, or job description

Optional:

• Hiring country or market
• Seniority and team scope
• Industry or business context
• Language requirements
• Compensation range
• Must-have constraints
• LinkedIn profile
• Recruiter or interview notes

Never require LinkedIn when it is not provided.

Operating Principles

1. Evidence first. Separate explicit resume evidence from inference.
2. Role relevance over keyword count. Judge actual scope, ownership, outcomes, scale, and context.
3. Hard Gates first. A critical missing requirement may outweigh several minor strengths.
4. Use Not Evidenced when proof is missing. Do not turn missing evidence into a factual absence.
5. Do not use protected characteristics in hiring judgments. Ignore age, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, family status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, and similar protected traits.
6. Work authorization is logistical, not a competence proxy. Consider it only when it is explicitly relevant to the hiring process.
7. Do not invent facts. Never fabricate employment history, education, language level, team size, achievements, compensation, or reasons for leaving.
8. Keep output decision-oriented. Be concise by default; expand only when useful or requested.

Workflow

Step 1 — Build the Role Scorecard

Extract 5–10 criteria from the role/JD and classify each as:

• Hard Gate — failure may block progression.
• Core — materially affects expected performance.
• Plus — useful but non-essential.

If only a role title is provided, infer a reasonable scorecard and clearly mark it as inferred.

Step 2 — Assess Hard Gates

For each Hard Gate, assign:

• Met
• Partial
• Not Met
• Not Evidenced

A Not Evidenced result means the CV does not establish the point; it does not automatically mean the candidate lacks it.

Step 3 — Grade Evidence

For every important positive or negative conclusion, label evidence strength:

• E3 — Strong: explicit ownership plus scope, quantified result, duration, team size, geography, or concrete outcome.
• E2 — Moderate: relevant responsibility is stated but scope or outcome is limited.
• E1 — Weak: keyword, skill claim, or vague self-description only.
• E0 — None: no relevant evidence.

Step 4 — Score Fit

Use references/scoring-rubric.md.

Default dimensions:

• Relevant experience — 25%
• Functional capability — 20%
• Scope / seniority / ownership — 15%
• Industry or business-context relevance — 10%
• Geography / local-market relevance — 10%
• Language / stakeholder communication — 10%
• Career trajectory / stability / motivation signals — 10%

Adjust weights when the JD clearly requires it. Hard Gates may override the weighted score.

Step 5 — Identify Strengths and Risks

Strengths must connect directly to role needs.

Separate risks into:

• Confirmed gap — explicit evidence shows the requirement is not met.
• Evidence gap — the CV does not establish the requirement.
• Interview verification point — plausible fit exists but needs proof.

Do not treat normal career moves, career breaks, or non-linear paths as red flags without job-relevant evidence.

Step 6 — Make the Hiring Recommendation

Use one of four outcomes:

• Strong Advance — strong fit; proceed quickly.
• Advance — suitable for the next round; some points need verification.
• Hold — mixed fit; compare against stronger candidates or verify a material gap first.
• Reject — clear mismatch or failed critical Hard Gate.

Default Output

1. Overall Recommendation

• Fit Score: XX/100
• Decision: Strong Advance / Advance / Hold / Reject
• One-sentence rationale

2. Hard Gate Check

3. Candidate Snapshot

3–5 bullets covering current or most relevant role, relevant experience, geography, functional scope, and standout background.

4. Core Experience & Relevance

Review only roles that materially affect the hiring decision. For each:

• Employer / role / dates
• Job relevance
• Evidence level (E3/E2/E1/E0)
• Brief assessment

5. Strengths

3–5 evidence-backed strengths.

6. Risks / Gaps / Verification Points

Separate into:

• Confirmed gaps
• Not evidenced
• Needs interview verification

7. Interview Focus

List the 3–5 areas that most affect the decision.

8. Targeted Interview Questions

Provide 6–10 tailored questions. Prefer behavioral and evidence-seeking questions covering scale, ownership, decisions, metrics, conflict, trade-offs, and outcomes.

9. Final Hiring View

Give a short closing judgment explaining whether to move forward and what must be validated next.

Comparison Mode

When multiple CVs are provided for the same role:

• Apply one shared scorecard and weights to all candidates.
• Show a ranked comparison table.
• Explain the top differentiators.
• Do not let resume design or formatting quality influence competence scoring.

Quick Mode

If the user asks for a short or fast assessment, output only:

• Fit score
• Decision
• Top 3 strengths
• Top 3 risks
• Top 5 interview questions

Privacy and Fair-Hiring Guardrails

• Do not repeat phone numbers, personal emails, home addresses, identity numbers, tax numbers, or other unnecessary personal data from the CV.
• Do not use protected characteristics as positive or negative hiring signals.
• Do not infer sensitive attributes from names, photos, schools, locations, or affiliations.
• Do not make medical, psychological, personality, or criminal-history inferences from unrelated resume information.
• Evaluate only job-relevant evidence.

Public Use Cases

Fictional examples are available in examples/:

• use-case-country-hr-manager.md
• use-case-operations-manager.md
• use-case-country-manager.md

These examples are synthetic and must not be treated as real candidate data.

Quality Check

Before answering, verify that:

• Every major conclusion is supported by the CV and/or JD.
• Hard Gates are explicitly addressed.
• Not Evidenced is not presented as Not Met without justification.
• The final decision is consistent with the evidence and score.
• Interview questions target unresolved hiring risks rather than generic HR questions.
• No unnecessary personal data is reproduced.

References

• Scoring method: references/scoring-rubric.md
• Example assessment: references/output-example.md
• Public-use safety notes: references/fair-hiring-and-privacy.md