hr-reviewer git:20260807.4f9256dA

Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/c1a57a3b828b98d8.

---
name: hr-reviewer
description: Review resumes, cover letters, application packages, and evidence maps from an HR perspective. Use when the user asks for 자기소개서 리뷰, 자소서 검토, HR 검토, 제출 전 점검, unsupported-claim detection, company-name residue checks, or risk-focused revision advice before applying.
---

# 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.
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. |

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.

## Output

```md
## 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`.