Resume Story Spinr

Resumes fail two filters: the ATS robot (keyword match) and the 6-second human skim (weak verbs, no numbers). Then whatever survives gets interrogated in the interview — and "Responsible for the payments API" has no story behind it. This skill transforms duty-bullets into quantified achievements, scores the resume against the target job description, and pre-builds the STAR stories an interviewer will dig for.

Overview

scripts/resume_spinr.py (offline, stdlib-only):

• transform — weak → strong verb rewrites ("Responsible for" → "Owned", "Worked on improving" → "Improved"), Action–Result splitting on semicolons/dashes, quantification detection, and metric hints for every unquantified bullet (what to measure for APIs, migrations, leadership, support…)
• ats — keyword coverage of resume vs job description with stop-word filtering, missing-term list, weak-opener counts, filler-phrase and formatting hazard detection
• interview — expands each bullet into S/T/A/R story scaffolding plus likely follow-up questions ("How did you measure that number?", "What was YOUR contribution vs the team's?")
• demo — all three on sample data

This is the structure engine — it fixes grammar, verbs, metrics detection, and scoring deterministically. The agent (you) uses its skeletons to draft final wording with the user's real numbers.

When to Use

• Writing/updating a resume or CV, or preparing bullet points
• Tailoring a resume to a specific job posting (run ats before and after)
• Converting a duties-listed resume into an achievements resume
• Preparing interview stories from resume bullets (STAR practice)
• Reviewing someone else's resume (structured critique with specifics)

Don't use for: cover letters (different document, different job), LinkedIn profile summaries (though bullets transfer), or academic CVs where duties-listing is the convention.

How It Works

1. Weak-opener library: 17 weak phrases mapped to strong verbs ("responsible for"→"Owned", "helped with"→"Drove", "tasked with"→"Led").
2. Gerund normalization: "Worked on improving test coverage" → "Improved test coverage".
3. Action/Result split: bullets are split on ;, —, "which resulted in", "reducing" — the first half is the Action, the rest becomes the Result clause, joined with " — ".
4. Quantification regex: detects %, currency, min/sec/ms, hours/days/weeks/months/years, user/customer/request counts, team sizes, 2.1M-style scales, req/s.
5. ATS scoring: tokenizes JD minus stop-words (no "looking", "experience", "team" noise), computes coverage, flags missing core terms, counts weak openers and filler phrases.
6. Follow-up generation: quantified bullets get "how did you measure it"; leadership bullets get conflict questions; migrations get "what went wrong".

Quick Start

# Transform weak bullets
python3 scripts/resume_spinr.py transform --bullets "Responsible for the payments API
Helped with migration of legacy services to Kubernetes
Worked on improving test coverage"

# Same, from a file (one bullet per line)
python3 scripts/resume_spinr.py transform --file bullets.txt

# Score against a job description
python3 scripts/resume_spinr.py ats --resume resume.txt --job posting.txt

# Build the interview story behind a bullet
python3 scripts/resume_spinr.py interview --bullet \
  "Led migration of 14 services; cut deploy time from 40min to 6min"

python3 scripts/resume_spinr.py demo

Steps (Agent Workflow)

1. Collect the user's current bullets (paste, file, or read from their resume text).
2. Run transform. For each ⚠-flagged bullet, ask the user for the real number using the printed metric hints ("What was the request volume? latency before/after?").
3. Re-run transform --metrics "serving 2.1M req/day" or rewrite with user-supplied figures.
4. Get the target job description; run ats. Add true statements covering missing core terms (never stuff keywords — 100% coverage is a red flag, 60–75% is strong).
5. For the 3–5 strongest bullets, run interview and have the user answer the follow-up questions out loud — the resume now makes promises the interview must keep.
6. Final human pass: tense consistency, no first person, one page per decade of experience.

Output Shape

[1] BEFORE: Responsible for the payments API
    AFTER:  Owned the payments API.
    ⚠ No metric — add: requests/sec served, p95/p99 latency change, error-rate delta
    Interview follow-up: What was YOUR specific contribution vs the team's?

[2] BEFORE: Led migration of 14 services; cut deploy time from 40min to 6min
    AFTER:  Led migration of 14 services — cut deploy time from 40min to 6min.

ATS MATCH REPORT
  Keyword coverage: 44%  (4/9 job terms found)
  [████████░░░░░░░░░░░░]
  Missing from resume (5):
    - grpc
    - observability
    ...

Common Pitfalls

1. Inventing metrics. The tool flags missing numbers; the user must supply real ones. A fabricated "38% latency cut" collapses in the interview when asked "how did you measure it?" — which the tool deliberately also generates.
2. Keyword stuffing to 100%. ATS coverage above ~75% with terms not backed by real experience gets flagged by recruiters and destroyed in screening calls. Mirror only true statements.
3. Keeping "Responsible for". It's the single most common resume verb and says nothing about impact. Every weak opener has a stronger replacement in the library.
4. One-line wonders with no Result. "Owned the payments API" is still a duty without an outcome. Every bullet needs Action — Result; the split heuristics show where the result should go.
5. Resume promises the interview can't keep. Every quantified bullet invites "walk me through it". Run interview on each final bullet; if the user can't tell the story, soften the bullet or practice the story.
6. Fancy formatting. Tables, text boxes, multi-column layouts, and non-standard bullets silently scramble ATS parsers. Plain single-column, standard headers, hyphen bullets.
7. Sending the same resume everywhere. Run ats per posting; 10 minutes of tailoring (core terms + reorder bullets) is the highest-ROI time in a job search.

Verification Checklist

• No weak openers remain (transform summary shows 0 unfixed)
• Every bullet quantified or consciously excepted (rare, e.g. people management)
• Every bullet reads Action — Result
• ATS coverage 60–75%+ on core terms for the target posting
• No filler phrases ("team player", "hard worker") detected
• Interview stories rehearsed for the top bullets
• Final format: single column, standard section headers, .docx or clean PDF

One-Shot Recipes

"Fix my resume for this posting"

python3 scripts/resume_spinr.py ats --resume resume.txt --job posting.txt
python3 scripts/resume_spinr.py transform --file resume_bullets.txt
# add true statements for missing core terms, re-run ats → 60-75%+

"I have a list of duties, need achievements"

python3 scripts/resume_spinr.py transform --file duties.txt
# for each ⚠ bullet, extract the real number from the user, rewrite

"Interview is tomorrow, stories from my resume"

python3 scripts/resume_spinr.py interview --file resume_bullets.txt
# user answers each follow-up out loud; fix bullets they can't defend

References

• references/ats-guide.md — how ATS parsers actually work, keyword strategy, formatting rules that survive parsing, before/after examples