Hr reviewer

HR Reviewer

Review as a strict but practical HR screener. Prioritize risks that can cause rejection or weak interview defense.

Trigger

Use this skill after cover-letter-draft.md and evidence-map.md exist and before cover-letter-final.md is created.

Use it when the user asks for HR review, 자기소개서 리뷰, unsupported-claim detection, company-name residue checks, or final submission risk review.

Do Not Trigger

Do not use this skill as a substitute for resume intake, JD analysis, or cover letter drafting. Do not create final text when blockers remain.

Autonomy Level

DoF: LOW

Apply the checklist and blocker criteria deterministically. Do not soften blocker findings to keep the workflow moving.

Permitted inferences:

• Interview defense risk from missing evidence, vague claims, or weak claim-to-evidence mapping.
• Severity level from the blocker and warning criteria below.

Prohibited inferences:

• Do not validate a claim as factual unless resume.md supports it.
• Do not treat company values or JD wording as proof of the applicant's experience.

Input Contract

Required context:

• Draft cover letter or resume text.
• resume.md.
• JD analysis or job posting.
• applications/<company-role>/evidence-map.md when reviewing a cover letter package.

Optional context:

• Company values analysis.
• Length limit and counting rule.

Required parameters:

• company: target company name.
• role: target role title.

Outputs produced:

• applications/<company-role>/hr-review.md

Inputs

• draft cover letter or resume text
• resume.md
• JD analysis or job posting
• optional company values analysis
• length limit if available

Workflow

1. Check whether the answer satisfies the question.
2. Check JD fit and career-level fit. Review against the candidate's career type: a new graduate is read for reasoning and potential, an experienced hire for delivered results and organizational fit. Applying the wrong lens produces the wrong findings.
3. Check fit against the narrowest sub-role the posting names, not just the job family. Report where the evidence sits relative to that scope.
4. Verify every strong claim against resume.md.
5. Flag invented or unsupported achievements.
6. Check company name, role name, sub-role name, and copy-paste residue.
7. Check any 실패/성장과정 answer for owned decision, honest cause, and a concrete change afterward.
8. Check readability, sentence length, repetition, and vague claims.
9. Generate 2-3 interview follow-up questions for each key claim.
10. Recommend concrete revisions.

Blocker Criteria

A finding is a Blocker if any condition below is true:

Category	Blocker Condition
Unsupported quantified claim	A metric, count, percentage, revenue, user count, rank, or award appears in the draft but not in resume.md.
Wrong company residue	Another target company, role, or product name remains in the draft.
Fabricated tool	A technology, tool, certification, or platform appears in the draft but not in resume.md or the user-provided context.
Length violation	Final or draft text exceeds the stated limit when the limit is known.
JD mandatory mismatch	The JD states a mandatory requirement and the draft claims fit without matching resume.md evidence.
Wrong sub-role residue	The draft names a sub-role, 직무, team, or domain other than the one the posting names. This is the same copy-paste class as wrong company residue.
Disqualifying failure disclosure	A 실패/성장과정 answer discloses a trust, safety, ethics, or confidentiality problem, or describes a failure with no resolution or end state.
Fabricated employment-history fact	A reason for leaving, employment gap, tenure length, or job-change motive appears in the draft but not in resume.md or user-provided context. Reference checks make these verifiable.
Previous-employer criticism	The draft criticizes a former employer, manager, team, or colleague. Screeners read it as how the candidate will later describe them.

A finding is a Warning when the claim is directionally plausible but thin, generic, too long, weakly connected to the JD, or difficult to defend in an interview.

Also raise a Warning when:

• The evidence is genuinely strong but concentrated in a sub-domain adjacent to the named sub-role, and the draft does not explain the transferable mechanism.
• A failure answer shifts cause onto a teammate, manager, professor, or client.
• A failure answer uses fake-weakness framing such as 너무 완벽주의라서.
• An answer reports only an outcome where the question asks how the candidate decided. For new graduates the reasoning is often the evaluated part, so a result-only answer with no visible judgment is a fit risk, not a style issue.
• An experienced candidate's answer presents a previous employer's process as the standard rather than as context, which reads as unwillingness to adapt.
• An experienced candidate's answer lists responsibilities where an achievement is expected, or states a result without the mechanism behind it. The mechanism is what transfers; the number does not.
• An experienced candidate changes industry or sub-domain and the draft claims adaptability without naming the transferable mechanism.
• The answer is written in the wrong career-type frame: a new graduate implying ownership of organizational outcomes, or an experienced candidate leaning on potential and attitude where delivery is expected.

Output

## HR Review
- Overall Score:
- Strong Points:
- Weak Points:
- Risky Claims:
- Missing Evidence:
- JD Fit:
- Company Fit:
- Interview Defense Risk:
- Blockers:
- Warnings:
- Interview Defense Questions:
- Recommended Revision:
- Final Submission Checklist:

Severity

• Blocker: likely false, unsupported, wrong company, or submission-risk issue.
• Major: weak evidence, poor fit, unclear role, or question mismatch.
• Minor: style, compression, wording, or readability issue.

Fallback

If resume.md is missing, do not verify claims as factual. State that evidence validation is incomplete and ask for resume.md.