profile
Skill3 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use this skill when the candidate is starting out, needs a job, or is working on their raw material, direction, and positioning — e.g. "I need a job", "help me get started", "let's get set up", "here's my résumé" (or a résumé dropped in the folder), "improve my base résumé", "help me with my pitch", "how do I introduce myself?", "review my LinkedIn", "audit my profile", "do my materials tell one story?", "my search changed". Owns ALL raw-material and public positioning state — profile, base résumé, pitch, LinkedIn audit, application defaults.
29 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nockawa/NockMontheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- galiprandi/job-seekertheir own version, first seen Nov 5, 2026
- cismontane-harris2642/signal-prospecting-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- YahyaLendani/opus-tuner-claude-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- DataWithBaraa/claude-code-data-engineering-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- r-rogozin/chessprinttheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use coverage, benchmark and 4 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
PydanticSkillcoverage
Fetch coverage diff from Codecov for the current branch or a specific PR. Shows uncovered lines, patch coverage, and overall coverage change.
Also in 3 projects that use this
dragonflydbSkillbenchmark
Benchmark Dragonfly (and compare against Valkey/Redis) on local or remote cloud instances, then produce a performance + memory report with charts and a raw-data appendix. Use this whenever the user runs /benchmark, or asks to benchmark / load-test / measure throughput, QPS, latency, or memory efficiency of Dragonfly or another Redis-compatible server, to compare Dragonfly vs Valkey or Redis, or to generate a benchmark report. Trigger it even when the user just describes the goal ("see how fast Dragonfly is on this box", "compare memory per key vs Valkey") without saying the word "benchmark".
Also in 3 projects that use this
AnthropicSkillstatus
Case status summary by audience — client-facing (plain language), internal (for the professor), or court-ready (formal caption format per local rules). Same facts, different framing and depth. Use when a student needs to update the client, brief the professor, or prepare a court status report.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkilldocs
Also in 3 projects that use this
VercelSkillsetup
Set up Vercel CLI and project configuration. Use when the user says "set up Vercel", "configure Vercel", "link to Vercel", or "vercel init".
Also in 3 projects that use this
GoogleSkilltdd
Test-driven development. Use when the user wants to build features or fix bugs test-first, mentions "red-green-refactor", or wants integration tests.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions29 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 29
- ccusage/ccusage★ 19ksame name
- ryoppippi/ccusage★ 19ksame name
- FalkorDB/FalkorDB★ 10ksame name
- pytorch/executorch★ 5.2ksame name
- verl-project/verl-omni★ 1.5ksame name
- nockawa/Typhon★ 253same name
- galiprandi/job-seeker★ 120same name
- the-void-ia/void-box★ 88same name
- DataWithBaraa/claude-code-data-engineering-skills★ 84same name
- Flemma-Dev/flemma.nvim★ 57same name
19 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 23 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 44
Settle the path: If the working folder is clean, name it plainly in chat: *"everything I write lands in <path> — say the word if you'd …
- Distinctive: line 45
Never hunt filesystem: Ask once if a previous search folder exists.
- Very specific: line 52
Process: Check documents/ first. Ask ONE question at a time.
- Very specific: line 62
Self-loop: Run ../apply/scripts/check_materials.mjs for structure and the independent wording check (references/language-check.md) for …
- Very specific: line 84
Exits: when linkedin-audit.md is written and downstream syncing obligations completed.
- Distinctive: line 92
Exits: when all surface mismatches have concrete rewrites.
- Very specific: line 98
Update targets in criteria.md (archiving old targets as history lines).
- Very specific: line 110
The write moment: Every pitch.md rewrite triggers four actions in the same turn: (1) update pitch.md, (2) sync profile.md § Snapshot …
- Distinctive: line 111
Hands back: When the ask is answered and records are written to disk.
- Very specific: line 112
Session close: Run node scripts/check_files.mjs --workspace ..
- Distinctive: line 121
Batch confirm: Document-sourced rows are confirmed in one batch with opt-out.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 23 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Profile — raw material & positioning
Everything the candidate brings and their core public positioning live here; every other skill consumes them. Backward looks — progress reviews, the retrospective — belong to the coach.
The goal, and what must be true when it is met
Turn whatever the candidate brings into the files every other skill reads — every fact traceable, positioning unified, nothing stated more strongly than what happened.
| Must be true at the end | Where it lives |
| The folder is settled and candidate knows its path — before any write | the Setup sequence, below |
| Workspace guardrails installed — the first file written | CLAUDE.md ← templates/workspace-CLAUDE.md |
| Target role or roles, plus seniority band — downstream ranking needs both | profile.md |
| A goal with a date, and a committed time floor | heads plan.md (intake seeds once, coach owns after) |
| Watchlist — companies they already care about. Empty is fine | criteria.md § Target companies |
| Base résumé at full altitude, § Claim rules seeded from hazard walk | base-resume.md (rules: § State, below; walk: references/patterns.md) |
| Core positioning statement surviving the substitution test | pitch.md § Core statement |
| All 5 pitch variants present (TMAY, Networking, Recruiter, Fair, LinkedIn) | pitch.md § Variants |
| Messages rubric pinned or marked PROPOSED | pitch.md § Messages rubric |
| LinkedIn audit with concrete section rewrites | linkedin-audit.md |
| Snapshot headline synced with pitch | profile.md § Snapshot |
| Directness preference: gentle / straight / blunt (default straight) | profile.md |
Application defaults — capture what's offered, TODO: the rest | profile.md § Application defaults |
Offered: voice.md (samples + never-say list) · 3–5 story leads | voice.md · profile.md → storybank |
Anything not yet true is written into its file as TODO: and resurfaces when it blocks what they ask for next — never on a schedule, never as a nag.
Prerequisites
- Required: A settled folder. Nothing is written before it.
- Optional: Documents in
documents/(read on sight);voice.mdsamples (calibrates voice);storybank.md(confirmed stories for pitch proof points).
Loops and sequences
Setup — the workspace (a sequence)
Runs when there is no CLAUDE.md in the working folder. Exits when the folder is settled, CLAUDE.md is written, and both drop paths (documents/, jd-inbox/) exist.
- Settle the path: If the working folder is clean, name it plainly in chat: "everything I write lands in
<path>— say the word if you'd rather use a different folder." If the folder is occupied or generic, propose~/job-search/. - Never hunt filesystem: Ask once if a previous search folder exists; never search unauthorized directories.
- Write guardrails first: Copy
templates/workspace-CLAUDE.mdtoCLAUDE.mdbefore any candidate file is created.
Intake — the raw material (a sequence)
Runs when a new candidate arrives, a résumé is dropped, or they ask to get set up. Exits when destination table items are written or TODO:'d, and the close summary is delivered.
- Process: Check
documents/first. Ask ONE question at a time. Decline raw LinkedIn URLs as seeding sources (request PDF export instead). - Extraction gate: Facts told directly in conversation are written to disk; facts extracted from documents pass through § Nothing extracted is written.
- Close: Deliver a concise summary (target, band, timeline, top asset, top risk, first step). Offer the practice cold-start ("say 'drill me' for your first 15-minute score").
Base résumé — improvement rounds (the loop)
Runs when they ask to improve the base résumé with no specific job in mind. ("Tailor for X" routes to apply.) Read the base resolution ladder (references/schema.md), the audit (references/eval.md), reader craft (references/patterns.md), and the Summary's shape (../apply/references/patterns.md § The Summary).
- Standard:
base-resume-brief.md § FIXED(sourced fromcriteria.mdtargets, top competencies across postings, andbase-resume.md § Claim rules). - Each round: Re-read brief in full. Apply changes reshape-only to
base-resume.md. Budget: 2–3 rounds, said up front. - Self-loop: Run
../apply/scripts/check_materials.mjsfor structure and the independent wording check (references/language-check.md) for phrasing (max 2 passes). - Score & ceiling: Score against
§ FIXEDasN/M heldcount over FIXED bullets plus reader tiers. Append row to## Roundsinbase-resume.md(orbase-resume-history.md). Read earlier rows first. - Exits: Draft scores M/M; budget expires; or the ceiling: two rounds in a row with the same count and tiers → stop and present tradeoff as a decision for them to make. Never relax the standard — cutting a claim's supporting evidence to fit a limit IS relaxing it: a claim-name without its number is not the claim.
Pitch — public positioning (the loop)
Runs when they ask to build or review their pitch, or another skill routes with a diagnostic (coach on silent funnel, outreach on response rate <10%).
- Standard: External and written down before drafting —
pitch-brief.md § FIXED(references/schema.md). - Budget: 2 rounds, said up front. Read earlier rows in
## Roundsinpitch.md(orpitch-history.md) first. - Each round: Re-read brief in full. Apply minimum change to move diagnostic score (
references/eval.md). Run substitution test on core statement. - Score & write: Score against
§ FIXEDasN/M heldcount plus 1–5 diagnostic. Append row to## Roundsinpitch.md(orpitch-history.md). - Exits: Scores M/M; budget expires; or the ceiling: two rounds in a row with the same count and diagnostic → stop and present tradeoff as a decision for them to make. Never relax the standard — cutting a claim's supporting evidence to fit a limit IS relaxing it: a claim-name without its number is not the claim.
LinkedIn (a sequence)
Runs when they ask for a LinkedIn review or audit.
- Verify profile URL: Match URL and profile against
profile.md/base-resume.md. - Audit top-down: Review Headline, About, Experience against search impact and positioning thesis. Produce concrete rewrites.
- Write
linkedin-audit.md: Sync headline toprofile.md § Snapshotand note consistency updates.
Exits when linkedin-audit.md is written and downstream syncing obligations completed.
Consistency sweep (a sequence)
Runs when asked "do my materials tell one story?" or after modifying any positioning surface.
- Cross-read base résumé summary, LinkedIn About/Headline, and pitch. Propose base résumé summary adjustments in chat before writing.
Exits when all surface mismatches have concrete rewrites.
Direction change (a sequence)
Runs when they ask what they are looking for, change targets, or retarget. Exits when criteria.md is current and downstream staleness is flagged.
- Update targets in
criteria.md(archiving old targets as history lines). - Flag downstream staleness in
pitch.md, evaluate verdicts, andcriteria.mdconstraints. Never restart from scratch.
State
File shapes in references/schema.md. Enforced by scripts/check_files.mjs.
- Owned files:
profile.md,criteria.md,base-resume.md,voice.md,pitch.md,pitch-brief.md,pitch-history.md,linkedin-audit.md. base-resume.mdrules:- Trace rule: Every number, title, date, scope claim on any surface traces here. A surface may be vaguer, never stronger.
- Ruling gate: Concessions ("I can't defend that"), declined proposals, and approved wordings are written here immediately.
- Direction rule: When a correction is agreed, update the base first in the same turn, then re-render dependent surfaces.
- The write moment: Every
pitch.mdrewrite triggers four actions in the same turn: (1) updatepitch.md, (2) syncprofile.md § Snapshotheadline, (3) propose any novel fact forbase-resume.md, (4) append row to## Roundsinpitch.md(orpitch-history.md). - Hands back: When the ask is answered and records are written to disk.
- Session close: Run
node scripts/check_files.mjs --workspace .. The wording check runs inside the base-résumé loop; no other profile surface is candidate-voiced, so the close spawns no checker-subagent. Report outcomes, never narration (clean is 1 line; fix FAILs before reply ends).
Nothing extracted is written until proposed, checked, and confirmed
Material extracted from documents or past sessions passes through the proposal table:
| field / claim | proposed value | source | tier | conflicts with |
- Batch confirm: Document-sourced rows are confirmed in one batch with opt-out.
- Explicit yes: Conversation-sourced claims and novel inferences require their own explicit confirmation.
- Declined proposals: Record as a ruling in
base-resume.md § Claim rules("declined at intake:<value>from<source>,<date>") so it is never re-proposed.
Guardrails
- Targets and core statements are written in candidate's words. Pitch must survive the substitution test.
- Respect
voice.mdand avoid artificial analogies or inflated scope words.
Every reply ends with ONE contextual next step — a sentence with its why, not a menu.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

