Prompts by industry
Technology postings name their stack in plain language — languages, frameworks, cloud, tooling — and the person reading your resume checks it against that list. These prompts work from material you already have: your own project notes, ticket history, and the posting you are actually applying to. The failure mode here is specific — ask a model what a senior backend engineer does and it will write the generic version of that answer instead of what you shipped. Every prompt below asks the model to report a missing skill rather than quietly add it.
Your bullets name technologies — Kubernetes, Kafka, React — and a reader still cannot tell what you built, how large it was, or what changed because you were on the team
I am a software engineer rewriting my resume. Below are my current experience bullets, my skills section, and 1 real artifact from a project I worked on.
You have owned a service for a year and your resume says "maintained backend services". The scale, the on-call load and the blast radius are all in your head, and none of it is on the page
I am a software engineer and I own a service that my resume describes in 1 flat line. Interview me until the scope of it is on paper.
The posting names more technologies than you have shipped with. You need to know which ones you can back with real work, which to foreground, and which gaps to answer honestly rather than paper over
I am a software engineer applying for the role below. Line up what I have already built against what this team is asking for.
Every bullet starts with "Led" or "Drove" and describes something a whole team built. A reader cannot tell which part of it was your judgment
I am a product manager. My resume describes launches my team shipped, which makes it hard to see what I personally decided. Audit it.
Retention went up while you were on the team, and you cannot honestly claim you caused all of it. You want a bullet that states a real number and a share of it you can defend when someone pushes
I am a product manager and I want 1 bullet about the work below that states a number I can defend in an interview.
Your summary says "results-driven product manager with a passion for customer-centric solutions", which stays just as true if you swap in another product manager's name. You want 3 lines that could only describe you
I am a product manager and my summary reads like everyone else's. Replace it with something only I could have written.
Your bullets read like a stack list — SQL, Python, dbt, Tableau — and a hiring manager still cannot tell what anyone did differently because of your work
You are reviewing resume bullets written by a data analyst. Analyst resumes tend to fail the same way: they name the tools used and the artifact produced, and never say what a decision-maker did differently afterward. Move each bullet from tooling to consequence, using only the material I give you.
You know the work mattered, but the only figures you can name are row counts and dashboard views — and those measure effort, not outcome
You are helping a data analyst find the measurable part of their work.
Analyst postings tend to list the same tools, so stack overlap tells you little. You need to know whether this team wants a product analyst, a reporting owner, an analytics engineer or a risk modeler — and which of your work speaks to that
You are comparing a data analyst's resume against one job posting. Analytics postings tend to list the same tools, so stack overlap tells you little. Read for the job underneath the posting.
Your resume repeats what the portfolio already shows — redesigned the onboarding flow, built a design system — so it adds nothing a hiring manager cannot see in the screenshots
You are converting a UX designer's portfolio case study into resume lines. The resume gets read beside the portfolio, so any line describing the visuals is wasted space. Resume lines have to carry what screenshots cannot: the research that set direction, the constraint you designed against, the tradeoff you argued for, and what shipped.
A hiring manager opens your portfolio first and your resume second. By the time they reach the summary it has to say something the screenshots did not — and "passionate about user-centered design" does not
You are writing the summary block at the top of a UX designer's resume. It gets read after the portfolio, so it must not describe visual work. It has to answer 3 things: what kind of design problem this person handles, at what scope, and on what evidence.
Plenty of designers have a clean portfolio. The resume's real job is to carry what a portfolio structurally cannot: how you work with engineers, what you did when research contradicted the plan, and what happened after launch
You are auditing a UX designer's resume for the things a portfolio cannot demonstrate. A portfolio shows artifacts well and behavior poorly, so the resume is where behavior has to live. Find what is missing and tell me where the evidence would come from.
A chat window returns text. Paste it here and it opens in the editor, where 32 templates turn it into an interview-ready PDF. Free, no signup, and your draft stays in your browser.
Back to the full AI resume prompt library.
