Este Prompt compara seu currículo com a descrição da vaga antes da candidatura
Why this prompt matters
Most applicants lose interviews before a human conversation starts. Not because they are unqualified, but because their resume hides relevant work, misses obvious hiring signals, or over-focuses on the wrong experience. A structured Prompt reduces that waste by turning a vague editing task into a targeted rewrite based on how screening actually works.
What we use it for
You find a role you actually want, but the job description is dense and your resume is a rough all-purpose version. Before you apply, you want to know which requirements matter most, where your evidence is thin, and which edits will make the strongest difference in one pass.
Prompt
Role: Act as a senior recruiter and career coach who reviews resumes against job descriptions, identifies hiring-risk gaps, and rewrites weak experience bullets into sharper evidence of fit. Context: I am applying for a role and I need more than generic resume feedback. I want a structured comparison between my resume and the target job description so I can see where I look strong, where I look weak, what evidence is missing, and which edits will most improve my chances. The goal is not to flatter me. The goal is to think like a skeptical recruiter who has to screen dozens of candidates quickly. Task: Compare my resume to the target job description. Identify the role's must-have requirements, nice-to-have signals, and likely screening criteria. Then evaluate how well my current resume matches those requirements. Flag missing experience, unclear phrasing, weak bullets, missing metrics, and places where my wording hides relevant experience. Rewrite the weakest bullet points so they are sharper, more credible, and more aligned with the role. If a gap cannot be fixed honestly, say so and suggest the safest workaround in the application, portfolio, or cover letter. Constraints: - Do not invent experience, tools, degrees, certifications, metrics, or achievements that are not supported by my input. - Separate true qualification gaps from presentation problems. - Prioritize the fixes that would matter most in an initial recruiter screen. - Keep important terms in English when they are standard hiring or technical language, such as API, SQL, Python, SaaS, KPI, OKR, and Prompt. - If the job description is unrealistic or overloaded, say which requirements are likely flexible versus essential. - When rewriting bullets, keep them believable and concise. - Point out ATS keyword issues, but do not turn the resume into unreadable keyword stuffing. Output Format: 1. Role summary in 3 to 5 bullet points 2. Top screening criteria the recruiter will probably use 3. Match score from 0 to 100 with a short explanation 4. Strengths already visible in the resume 5. Real gaps that could block an interview 6. Presentation problems that make the resume look weaker than it is 7. Rewritten bullet points for the most important weak sections 8. Missing keywords or evidence to add carefully 9. Tailored application strategy for this specific role 10. Red flags or claims I should avoid making Inputs: - Job title: [TARGET ROLE] - Company type: [STARTUP / ENTERPRISE / AGENCY / PUBLIC SECTOR / OTHER] - Job description: [PASTE FULL JOB DESCRIPTION] - My current resume: [PASTE RESUME TEXT] - Seniority level: [ENTRY / MID / SENIOR / STAFF / EXECUTIVE] - Roles I most want to emphasize: [LIST] - Areas where I feel weak: [LIST] - Country or market: [LOCATION] - Any strict constraints: [NO DEGREE / CAREER GAP / INDUSTRY SWITCH / ETC.]
Result
1. Role summary - The role is a senior product analyst position in a B2B SaaS company focused on self-serve growth and lifecycle retention. - The employer wants someone who can work across SQL, experimentation, stakeholder communication, and dashboard design. - The description strongly suggests they value business judgment as much as technical analysis. - Experience partnering with product managers and marketing appears to matter more than pure BI reporting depth.
2. Top screening criteria the recruiter will probably use First, whether the candidate has clear evidence of ownership over product or growth analytics rather than generic reporting support. Second, whether they can show strong SQL and experimentation experience in a SaaS environment. Third, whether the resume proves business impact with metrics instead of task lists. Fourth, whether cross-functional communication is visible, especially with product, engineering, and go-to-market teams.
3. Match score 78/100. The resume shows strong analytics fundamentals, dashboard ownership, and stakeholder exposure, but it undersells experimentation work and does not clearly connect analysis to revenue or retention outcomes. The candidate looks plausible for interview, but not yet obvious.
4. Strengths already visible in the resume The candidate has four years of analytics experience, clear SQL usage, ownership of recurring executive reporting, and evidence of collaboration with product managers. The migration project bullet also signals comfort with messy systems and operational work.
5. Real gaps that could block an interview There is no direct mention of A/B testing design, retention analysis, or lifecycle funnel ownership, even though the job description emphasizes all three. Python appears only once and without context, which makes technical depth hard to judge.
6. Presentation problems Several bullets describe activity rather than outcome. Phrases like “supported dashboards” and “helped improve reporting” are too weak for a senior role. Important SaaS metrics such as activation, conversion, churn, or expansion are absent.
7. Rewritten bullet points - Replaced “Supported weekly dashboards for product leadership” with “Owned weekly product-performance dashboards used by leadership to track activation, retention, and conversion trends across the self-serve funnel.” - Replaced “Helped marketing with campaign reporting” with “Partnered with lifecycle marketing to analyze campaign performance, identify drop-off points, and inform retention experiments tied to reactivation goals.” - Replaced “Worked on data migration project” with “Led analytics validation during a cross-system data migration, reducing reporting discrepancies and restoring stakeholder trust in core KPI reporting.”
8. Missing keywords or evidence to add carefully Add any truthful experience tied to experimentation, cohort analysis, retention, funnel analysis, lifecycle metrics, and product decision support. If you used Python for notebook analysis or automation, say how.
9. Tailored application strategy Lead with product analytics, not general BI work. Move any experiment-related example higher on the page. If you do not have formal A/B ownership, use a cover letter or application note to show adjacent evidence such as hypothesis testing, funnel diagnosis, or post-launch measurement.
10. Red flags to avoid Do not imply ownership of experimentation programs if you only consumed results. Do not add growth metrics you cannot defend in an interview. Avoid stuffing the resume with every keyword from the posting if the underlying evidence is weak.
A maioria das pessoas não precisa de mais uma revisão genérica de currículo. O que elas realmente precisam é de uma forma mais rápida de ver como uma descrição de vaga específica vai julgar a candidatura antes mesmo de um Recruiter chegar a uma primeira conversa.
É exatamente para isso que este Prompt foi criado. Ele faz o modelo pensar ao mesmo tempo como Recruiter e como career coach, e depois separar lacunas reais de qualificação de problemas de apresentação. Essa diferença importa. Não ter uma habilidade não é a mesma coisa que ter um bullet point mal escrito, e os dois problemas não devem ser tratados da mesma forma.
A estrutura é intencional. O Role coloca o modelo na posição de um avaliador cético, não de alguém que apenas incentiva. O Context deixa claro que a tarefa é específica para uma vaga, não um conselho de carreira genérico. O Task pede critérios de triagem, análise de aderência, reescrita de bullet points fracos e uma estratégia prática de candidatura. Os Constraints fazem o trabalho mais importante: impedem o modelo de inventar conquistas, métricas falsas ou keyword stuffing desonesto só para fazer o currículo parecer melhor.
O formato de saída também torna este Prompt mais útil do que uma reescrita única. Em vez de simplesmente devolver um currículo revisado, ele explica a lógica provável da triagem, atribui uma pontuação de aderência com justificativa, identifica bloqueios reais e reescreve primeiro as seções mais fracas. Isso ajuda o leitor a gastar tempo onde há impacto de verdade, e não polindo detalhes de baixo valor.
O exemplo mostra o tipo de diagnóstico que candidatos fortes realmente precisam. Ele não apenas diz “adapte seu currículo”. Explica quais sinais um Recruiter provavelmente vai procurar, como um candidato pode parecer mais forte sem exagerar e onde experiências adjacentes podem ser reposicionadas com honestidade. Isso é especialmente útil para quem está mudando de área, mirando uma vaga mais ambiciosa ou tem uma experiência melhor do que a redação atual deixa parecer.
Se você se candidata de forma seletiva em vez de disparar o mesmo currículo para todo lugar, este Prompt vale ser salvo. Ele transforma a edição do currículo em um processo de decisão mais afiado e pode ajudar você a enxergar fraquezas antes que o funil de contratação faça isso por você.