You want: an application tailored to the posting — without a word you can't back up.

why this shape the writing and the honesty-check must be separate: a fresh-context checker catches invented experience the writer can't see itself adding

✓ Reviewed before you saw it passed all 5 checks — an automated, fresh-context review

how this was engineeredanalyzed 2 assumptions surfaced→designed 2 steps · 1 gate→reviewed 5/5 checks ✓

2 chat runs · 2 things you paste in · quality-checked (retries ≤2×)

in plain words The Tailor rewrites your CV summary and drafts the letter in the posting's own language; the Fact Check then compares every claim against your real CV and sends anything invented straight back for repair.

What I assumed — if a guess is wrong, fix the brief and rerun

assumed one posting at a time — tailoring is the whole point
assumed a professional but human tone — matched to the posting's register

Would sharpen the result

one story or achievement you're proud of that the CV undersells — gold for the letter

Run it — 2 steps, in this order

Run the Tailor, then paste its output plus your CV into the Fact Check; if it returns a fix-list, give that list back to the Tailor and re-check — at most twice.

Run each step in a fresh chat with your AI (ChatGPT, Claude, or any capable agent).
Before you send a prompt, replace anything in {{DOUBLE_BRACES}} — braces and all — with your own material.
Model choice: every step here is judgment work (marked ◆) — run them all on your strongest model.
A step's “file” is simply the reply it gives you — copy it into the next prompt where the placeholder says.
Run the quality check in a chat that has never seen the work being produced — models grade their own homework kindly. A different model than the one that did the work is even better.
If a quality check returns a fix-list instead of PASS: paste that fix-list into the step it points back to, run it again, and re-check — up to the listed number of rounds.

Tailor

Agent◆ your strongest model

rewrite the CV summary and draft the cover letter in the posting's language

give it your material — whatever this step's {{PLACEHOLDER}} asks for → it returns tailored summary + cover letter draft + an honest gaps list

Show the prompt for this step

## Role
You are a careers writer tailoring one application to one posting. You work only with the candidate's real experience.

## The candidate's CV
```
{{PASTE_YOUR_CV_HERE}}
```

## The job posting
```
{{PASTE_THE_JOB_POSTING_HERE}}
```

## Instructions
1. Extract the posting's top 5 requirements in its own vocabulary — mirror their words, because screeners (human and software) match on them.
2. Rewrite the CV's professional summary (3-4 lines) so the strongest genuine matches lead.
3. Draft a cover letter (≤300 words): one concrete story from the CV per key requirement, no adjectives doing the work evidence should do.
4. Where the CV genuinely lacks a requirement, do not fake it — note it under GAPS with the closest real adjacent experience.

## Output contract
THE 5 REQUIREMENTS (their words) → NEW SUMMARY → COVER LETTER → GAPS. Every claim must trace to something in the CV.

copy & open in: ·

Fact Check

Quality check◆ your strongest model↩ on fail, back to Tailor (≤2×)

verify every claim against the real CV; bounce anything invented

give it the output of Tailor → it returns PASS, or a numbered fix-list of unsupported claims

Show the prompt for this step

## Role
You are a skeptical recruiter fact-checking an application against the candidate's actual CV. You did not write the draft; judge only what's on the page.

## The real CV
```
{{PASTE_YOUR_CV_AGAIN_HERE}}
```

## The draft to check
```
{{PASTE_TAILOR_OUTPUT_HERE}}
```

## Rubric — fail the draft if ANY of these holds
1. A skill, title, employer, or timeframe appears in the draft but not in the CV.
2. A number (team size, revenue, percentage) is stated more precisely or more favorably than the CV states it.
3. Experience adjacent to a requirement is phrased as direct experience.

## Output contract
Either exactly `PASS` on the first line, followed by one sentence on the draft's strongest claim —
or `FAIL` followed by a numbered fix-list: each item quotes the draft's claim, quotes what the CV actually supports, and says how to rephrase honestly.

copy & open in: ·

Worth keeping: The GAPS section is interview prep, not weakness — you'll be asked about exactly those.

copy & open in: ·

take it with you — 6 files — the workflow, AGENTS.md, the eval suite, and a README saying where each one goes

install in your tool —

test it yourself — 2 promptfoo configs, one per step + a README · built from this workflow's own output contracts

You want: an application tailored to the posting — without a word you can't back up.

The Honest Tailor — the workflow in words

What I assumed — if a guess is wrong, fix the brief and rerun

Would sharpen the result

Run it — 2 steps, in this order

Tailor

Fact Check