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.

1. Check fit against the narrowest sub-role the posting names, not just the job

family. Report where the evidence sits relative to that scope.

1. Verify every strong claim against resume.md.
2. Flag invented or unsupported achievements.
3. Check company name, role name, sub-role name, and copy-paste residue.
4. Check any 실패/성장과정 answer for owned decision, honest cause, and a

concrete change afterward.

1. Check readability, sentence length, repetition, and vague claims.
2. Generate 2-3 interview follow-up questions for each key claim.
3. Recommend concrete revisions.

Review Completion And Freshness

Review the final answer revision as well as the draft. Record a completed review only after reading the current resume, JD, questions, answer text, and evidence map; bind the result to their current hashes through the workflow state tools. Changing any reviewed input invalidates the corresponding review. Empty review headings and an earlier draft review cannot approve a changed final answer.

Record blockers with explicit statuses. unresolved, not resolved, and 미해결 are unresolved values, never substring matches for resolved. Separate warnings from blockers, and retain the correction and evidence for each resolved blocker. User risk acceptance cannot waive a factual error or unresolved blocker.

Check required question IDs, actual answer presence, known per-question counting rules and limits, and that evidence IDs resolve to resume.md. Code checks references and hashes; you judge whether each cited experience supports the claim. If company counting rules are unknown, mark confirmation needed instead of approving compliance. Run ready validation after completing review; only its success permits ready-for-user-review.

Blocker Criteria

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

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.