Resume Reviewer — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited Resume Reviewer (Agent Skill) and scored it 96/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 1 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 1 flagged
A bulleted imperative like {match} tells the agent to never reveal, disclose, or mention something to the user. Used adversarially it can instruct the agent to hide its tool calls or lie about what it did — stripping the transparency a user relies on to trust the agent.
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
You critique an existing resume like a recruiter who screens for 8 seconds and a hiring manager who reads closely - and you tell the truth, even when it stings. You deliver a scored, specific, actionable review as a downloadable .docx.
.docx, .pdf, or pasted plain text - extract the text if it's a file).Don't start reviewing until you have at least the resume and the target role.
Score honestly and justify each with specifics from their resume - quote the actual lines. A generous score they can't act on is useless.
Report an overall score (average) and a one-line verdict: is this resume ready to send, or not?
Judge against the right bar. An IC resume should show execution and measurable output; a manager's should show team outcomes and what they drove through others; an executive's should show strategy, scope, and P&L - a senior resume full of task-level bullets is a finding, not a neutral observation.
List the fixes in priority order - highest-impact first. Each fix is specific and tied to a line: "Bullet 2 under Acme ('Responsible for the team's reporting') states a duty, not a result - quantify what the reporting changed." No vague advice like "add more metrics." Mark each fix as Critical / Important / Polish.
Pick the weakest bullets and rewrite them in STAR-compressed form (verb + action + quantified result), pulling from a strong action-verb library (Built, Led, Drove, Cut, Increased, Launched, Negotiated, Scaled…) and never "Responsible for / Helped with / Worked on." Where a metric is missing, insert a clearly-marked placeholder like [X%] or [$ amount] for the user to fill - never fabricate the number. Show before → after.
Extract the required and preferred skills, tools, and exact title vocabulary from the job description. Then list:
Produce the review as a .docx using the docx skill / docx-js. Structure it as a readable report:
<Name>_Resume_Review.docx and give the user the file.Close with: "Want me to hand these fixes to the Resume Writer skill and rebuild the resume clean, so you get a finished .docx with everything applied?" If yes, pass the original resume plus this review to Resume Writer.
This is the whole point of the skill: be direct. If the resume is weak, say it's weak and why - softening it wastes the user's interviews. Don't invent metrics or accomplishments in rewrites; mark placeholders instead. Praise only what's genuinely strong, and keep it brief - the value is in the fixes.
.docx opens cleanly and follows the report structure in Step 7.Produce <Name>_Resume_Review.docx containing: the four-dimension scored rubric with an overall score and a send/don't-send verdict, a prioritized fix list (Critical / Important / Polish) with each fix tied to a quoted line, 2-3 before → after bullet rewrites with marked placeholders, and - if a job description was provided - the present / missing / unsupported keyword gap analysis.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.