A score tells you something is broken. A review tells you what to change, line by line. Tone, seniority phrasing, narrative coherence, GitHub coherence — read like a debrief, not a checklist.
Both are useful. They are not interchangeable. If you have already passed an ATS check and still keep getting silence, the gap is at the next layer — narrative and signaling — and a score will not surface it.
ATS / Resume score
Right tool when you want a quick pass/fail before submitting. Use the resume checker →
Deep CV review
Right tool when the score is fine but you still get silence.
Active vs passive voice, ownership claims, level of abstraction. "Helped build" reads two levels below "owned and shipped". The review surfaces every bullet where the verb undersells the work.
Job changes, promotions, tenure, gaps. Does the trajectory make sense? Are there silent reversals (senior title, then junior title) that need addressing? A coherent story reduces uncertainty for the reader.
If your CV claims production-level Kubernetes, your GitHub should not show only React tutorials. The review cross-references commit history, language distribution, and project relevance against your stated stack.
Anchored to the job description you provide. Where you are clearly aligned, where you over-pitch, where you under-pitch. Specific feedback per role, not a generic CV grade.
Generic bullets ("worked with cross-functional teams", "improved system performance") read as filler. The review flags vague claims and rewrites the worst offenders with concrete numbers and verbs.
Title differences, overlapping dates, claimed years of experience versus graduation year, recommendations that contradict the CV. Each inconsistency reduces trust by a measurable amount.
Anchored to a real role. Plain-English critique. Before/after rewrites for the bullets that need it most.
Run free deep review →Top 5-7 findings expressed in plain English: what stood out, what raised doubt, what would land differently with the hiring manager. Each finding is anchored to a specific section or bullet of your CV.
For the 3-5 weakest bullets, you get a concrete suggested rewrite — same content, stronger phrasing. Side-by-side so you can see what changed and why.
Every finding ranked by impact on this specific role. Apply the top 3 first. This is not a 40-item generic checklist — it is the few changes that actually move the application.
If your GitHub or LinkedIn weakens or contradicts the CV story, you get a clear, named flag — with the exact item that triggers it. Most candidates never see these because they only review the CV in isolation.
A check is binary and fast: did your CV match the keywords, did it pass parsing, what is the score. A review is qualitative: how does the narrative read, does the tone match the seniority you are claiming, does your GitHub back the story, are the bullets specific or vague. The output of a check is a number; the output of a review is feedback you can act on, line by line.
Plain English. Each finding is phrased the way a senior hiring manager would write it in a one-on-one debrief: what stood out, what raised doubt, what to change first. Where useful, you get before/after rewrites of specific bullets — not just labels like "weak verb".
Yes. The review treats your CV, GitHub, and LinkedIn as one application. Inconsistencies between them — title differences, claimed skills with no commit history, projects on the CV that no longer exist on GitHub — are flagged with the same weight a recruiter or hiring manager would give them.
You paste the target job description. The review is then anchored to that role: which of your bullets are relevant, which read off-target, where your seniority signaling matches the role level and where it slips. A generic review tells you what is wrong; a role-anchored review tells you what to fix for this specific opportunity.
Under 60 seconds. The review is generated by a dual-AI pipeline (GPT-4o and Claude) running in parallel — each model audits a different layer (narrative, technical signal, consistency, format), then the outputs are composed. Speed comes from concurrency, not from skipping depth.
The free deep review returns the critique with prioritized fixes and example rewrites for the highest-impact bullets. A full surgical rewrite (with all fixes applied and a clean PDF export) is a premium feature — but the diagnosis itself is free, and you can apply the fixes manually.
Anchored to one role. Plain-English. Before/after rewrites included.
Get my CV reviewed free