Why this score?
The overall score is not meant to be the only “correct” way to judge a resume. It is designed to be explainable (you can see what drove the score) and actionable (you know what to change next).
The 5 dimensions (what they measure)
Completeness
Do you provide the minimum information recruiters need?
Readability
Can a human scan it fast and understand it correctly?
Evidence
Do bullets prove impact with results, scope, and ownership?
Role focus
Does it look like a consistent fit for the intended role?
ATS
Will parsing + keyword matching work (without stuffing)?
Scoring standards (practical checks you can apply)
Completeness
- Core sections present: Header / Summary / Experience / Skills / Education (Projects optional but recommended).
- Each experience entry has minimum info: company, role/title, dates, and what you worked on (tech + scope).
- Missing critical fields (no timeline, no role name, missing links) reduces the score.
Readability
- Length + density: typically 1–2 pages; bullets usually ≤ 2 lines.
- Bullets start with strong verbs; parallel structure; avoid large paragraphs.
- Spelling/grammar issues, redundancy, and weak verbs (help/assist/participate) reduce the score.
Evidence
- Core experiences include results: metrics, scale, impact (performance/cost/stability/efficiency/revenue/users).
- Bullets follow STAR/XYZ shape: what you did + how + outcome.
- Only listing responsibilities (no outcomes) reduces the score.
Role focus
- Tech stack aligns with the target role (e.g. backend: Java/Go, DBs, distributed systems, reliability, performance).
- Experience reads like one coherent “main thread” (not jumping between unrelated roles).
- Summary / Skills / Experience are consistent (avoid contradictions).
ATS
- Resume structure is parseable: clear headings; consistent company/date formatting.
- Keyword coverage includes direct terms + reasonable synonyms (especially when a JD is provided).
- Avoid charts/tables/odd layouts that break parsing.
How the overall score is aggregated
Weighted sum (weights are part of the explanation)
A simple, transparent approach: each dimension contributes by a predefined weight.
No JD provided
Readability 20% · Completeness 20% · Evidence 30% · Role focus 20% · ATS 10%
JD provided
ATS 25% · Role focus 25% · Evidence 25% · Readability 15% · Completeness 10%
Hard penalties (critical issues)
Some problems are disproportionately harmful. Examples: broken/unclear timeline, completely unparseable ATS format, or zero outcomes/metrics across core roles. These can trigger a direct deduction (e.g. 10–20 points) even if other areas look fine.
What makes the score credible
- It explains “why you are 68 and not 80” with specific, checkable reasons.
- It gives concrete next steps (what to add/remove/change) rather than vague advice.
- The dimensions are a reasonable backbone, but not the only valid framework.
Want a personalized breakdown?
Paste your resume (and optionally a job description). We’ll show the weakest dimension first and what to fix.