review

Review the application for the job named in the user's message. Application folders are named <company>-<position>, so match the message against the folder names in applications/. If the company has more than one folder and the message does not say which role, ask which one. (If nothing is given, use the most recent folder in applications/.)

The compiled resume in that folder is named after the candidate and the role, so find it by pattern (*-Resume-*.pdf), not by a fixed filename. Folders created before this naming rule may still hold a plain resume.pdf; fall back to that if no *-Resume-*.pdf exists.

Act as two different reviewers and be strict. Save results as review.md in the application folder and show me the summary.

REVIEWER 1 — Skeptical recruiter (30-second test):

• Read only the top third of the resume PDF. Is the match with the job obvious in 10 seconds? If not, say exactly what to move up.
• Flag anything vague, exaggerated, or buzzword-empty.
• Flag any bullet without a concrete result where the master resume actually contains a number we forgot to use.
• Read the cover letter: would a tired recruiter finish it? Flag clichés.

REVIEWER 2 — ATS robot test:

• Extract raw text from the resume PDF (pdftotext or a script).
• Check: does the text read top-to-bottom in correct order? Are name, email, and phone present in the extracted text? Are section headings standard? Is the date format consistent?
• Compare extracted text against the keyword list in job-analysis.md. Report keywords covered and keywords missing. For each missing keyword, classify honestly: (a) wording problem — I have the experience, we can rephrase truthfully, or (b) real gap — do NOT add it.

Finish with:

• A score out of 10 for recruiter-readability and out of 10 for ATS.
• A short numbered fix list. Ask me if I want you to apply the fixes.