First-hand data first
- Chose
- The employer's own hiring system and its publish date.
- Why
- A third-party feed's "recent" label was right only 16% of the time.
I built a job-market data platform for my own job search. Every night it collects open software jobs from employers' own hiring systems, ranks them against my resume, and drafts a tailored one-page resume for the best matches.
The employer's publish date matters: a third-party job feed I checked labelled postings "recent" when it first saw them, and only 16% of those were really posted in the last 3 days. So I rank by the date the employer's own system gives.
Open software roles by hiring system. I read the employers' own systems first; LinkedIn and job boards only fill gaps.
| Posted | Role | Company | Location | Source |
|---|
| Requirement | Finance companies | All AI roles |
|---|
Each step starts when the step it needs is done. Model work runs only in a fixed night window. Every step writes its result to a status file, and a failure sends an alert.
For each job, the model rewrites one bullet at a time to use the job's own words for the same work. Then a set of plain checks decides what happens to each change:
| Ready | Same facts, the job's vocabulary. Goes into the PDF. |
| Confirm | Adds something my records don't show yet (a skill, a stronger claim). Kept, but marked for me to confirm. My answer is saved as a fact for every later resume. |
| Rejected | A number the model made up, a changed company or date, filler words, more than three new keywords in one bullet, broken LaTeX, or a bullet that doubled in length. |
The page fit is checked on the real PDF: if a version runs over one page, the longest rewrite goes back to its original wording before any bullet is dropped.