The most common reason a strong CV fails late is a line that does not hold up: a title the reference does not confirm, a number the candidate cannot explain, a project that was really the team's. This skill reads the CV the way a sceptical interviewer and a background checker would, and offers a truthful wording for every risky line.
Part of the pm-cv bundle. Run it before cv-docx-export.
What This Skill Produces
- A claim table: each factual claim, its risk, and the question an interviewer would ask
- Safer wording for each risky line, true and still strong
- A verify list: dates, titles and figures to check against records before sending
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- The CV
- The person's own notes on any claim they are unsure of (for example which numbers are estimates)
Working from a brief
Given only a few claims instead of a whole CV, check those claims anyway: for each, say how it would be probed in an interview, a reference or a background check, and give a safer wording that is still strong. Then list the other claim types to check once the full CV is shared.
Framework
For every factual claim, check:
- Title: would HR records and a reference confirm it exactly? "Acting" or "interim" is fine if stated.
- Number: where does it come from? Could the person explain how it was measured in one minute?
- Ownership: "led" versus "contributed to". Did the person decide, or support?
- Dates: month and year match records? No overlaps hidden, no gaps stretched over.
- Skills: is each one used somewhere on the CV?
- Qualifications: awarded, or in progress? Labelled correctly?
Risk levels:
- High: would likely fail a reference or background check (title, dates, qualification)
- Medium: would struggle under a follow-up question (number, ownership)
- Low: vague but harmless
Output Format
Honesty check: [name]
1. Claim table | Line | Claim | Risk | Likely question | Safer wording | 2. Verify before sending | Fact | Check against | 3. Summary: count of high, medium and low risks, and whether it is ready to send
Quality Checks
- Every title, date range, number and qualification is in the table
- Every high or medium risk has a safer wording
- Safer wordings are true and still specific
- The summary says plainly whether the CV is ready
Anti-Patterns
- Helping a claim sound more defensible without making it true. The goal is accuracy.
- Stripping the CV of confidence. "Led" is fine when the person led.
- Ignoring dates. Date fudges are among the most often checked items.
- Moralising. Point out the risk and give the wording. Keep it practical.
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Check my CV holds up before I send it."
- "Is it OK to say I led this project? I was second in charge."
- "Which lines on my CV would an interviewer challenge?"
- "Help me check whether there are any exaggerations in my resume."