AI Guides › Workbench
By Nigel Guy · 8 min read
Most people paste their CV into a chatbot, type "make this better", and get back something smoother, longer and less true. It reads well to you because the model has flattered your phrasing. It reads worse to the person screening it, because every line now sounds like everyone else's AI-polished CV, and some of the numbers in it were never yours.
The rule: make the model read your CV against one specific job advert, as someone hunting for reasons to reject it, and never let it invent a number you can't defend in an interview.
This is a kit of four prompts run in order in one chat. Each does one job.
| Prompt | What it does | Cost at time of writing | Best for | The catch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Rejection read | Lists the three things most likely to get your CV binned for this role | Claude Free plan: £0 | Seeing your CV the way a busy screener does | It is a simulation; it cannot know a real company's process |
| 2. XYZ rewrite | Rebuilds experience bullets as result, measure, method | Free plan | Turning duties into evidence | Will fabricate metrics unless you forbid it |
| 3. Skim and keyword check | Checks advert terms against your CV and flags sections a skim reader would skip | Free plan | Tailoring to one advert | Any "score out of 100" is the model's opinion, not an ATS output |
| 4. Summary rewrite | Rewrites your opening statement for this role | Free plan | The few lines read first | Easy to tip into salesy overclaiming |
All four work on the free plan, which accepts PDF and DOCX uploads (up to 20 files per chat, per Anthropic's help centre). Claude Pro is listed at US$20 a month; the sterling price is set regionally and shown at claude.ai/upgrade. I could not confirm the exact UK figure, so check it there before paying. You do not need Pro for this.
Upload your CV, then paste this. Fill in the company, role and advert.
You are an experienced recruiter screening applications for [ROLE TITLE] at [COMPANY NAME]. You have a large pile to get through and you are looking for reasons to move each CV to the "no" pile quickly.
Job advert:
[PASTE FULL JOB ADVERT]
My CV is attached.
Steps:
1. Skim the CV the way you would on a first pass: top third first, then headings and the first words of each bullet.
2. Compare what you see against the essential requirements in the advert.
3. Identify the three issues most likely to cause a rejection at this first pass. Rank them by severity.
Output: a numbered list of three items. For each, give the issue in one sentence, quote the line or section that causes it, and say which advert requirement it fails.
Rules: do not rewrite anything yet. Do not comment on fonts or layout unless they would genuinely stop a reader. If the advert is missing or too vague to judge against, say so and ask me for it instead of guessing. Before answering, check that every issue you name points to something actually in my CV.
The formula comes from Laszlo Bock, Google's former head of people operations, in a 2014 LinkedIn post. Each bullet states what you achieved (X), the measure that proves it (Y), and the action you took (Z), in that order. Run this in the same chat so the model remembers the three red flags.
Now rewrite the experience section of my CV to fix the three issues you identified.
Format each bullet as: result achieved (X), how it was measured (Y), what I did to get there (Z). Start with an active verb. Remove stock phrases such as "responsible for", "team player" or "results-driven".
Hard rule on numbers: use only figures that appear in my CV or that I give you. Where a bullet needs a measure I have not supplied, write [NEED FIGURE: what to measure] in its place and list those gaps at the end as questions for me. Never estimate, round up or invent a number, percentage, budget or team size.
Output: the rewritten section in plain text, followed by a "Questions for you" list. Keep each bullet to two lines or fewer.
Before answering, check every number in your draft against my original CV and our chat, and remove any you cannot trace.
Answer its questions with real figures, or tell it to rephrase the bullet without a number. "Cut month-end close from ten days to six" is strong. "Improved efficiency by 37%" with no source is a liability.
Applicant tracking systems vary by employer and are configured differently, and Claude cannot see any of them. What it can do is show you where the advert's language and your CV's language don't meet.
Read my revised CV twice, once as keyword-matching software and once as a hiring manager skimming dozens of applications in one sitting.
Job advert: [PASTE FULL JOB ADVERT, or say "same as above"]
Steps:
1. Build a table of the skills, tools and qualifications named in the advert, with columns: Advert term | Appears in my CV? (exact / close wording / missing) | Where.
2. For any term marked "close wording", suggest the advert's exact phrasing only if it is accurate for me.
3. Name the sections a skim reader would skip, and say why in one line each.
4. Rewrite only those skipped sections.
Rules: do not add skills I have not shown evidence of. If you give an overall fit rating, label it clearly as your judgement, not a system score. Ask me if a requirement is ambiguous rather than assuming.
Check before answering: every "missing" term is genuinely absent, and no rewrite claims experience not in my CV or our chat.
Write the short introduction that sits under my name on the CV, for the [ROLE TITLE] role at [COMPANY NAME].
Use only evidence already in my revised CV. Aim for three to four lines. Lead with the one or two strongest results that match the advert's top requirements, then state what I am looking to do next in this role.
Avoid: superlatives, "passionate", "dynamic", claims about being the best candidate, and anything I could not repeat comfortably in an interview.
Give me two versions, one plain and one slightly bolder, and tell me in one line which advert requirement each version leans on. If you need something from me to write it well, ask first.
The original aim here is a summary that makes passing on you feel like a missed opportunity. That comes from relevance and proof, not tone. If the bolder version sounds like an advert, use the plain one.