Interview first: your career, in your own words
Your résumé is the worst witness to your own career. It was written under a page limit, in the voice you thought recruiters wanted, some number of years ago. It says what the team shipped. It's silent about the cancelled project that taught you the most, and about why there's a gap between 2019 and 2021, and about the number you could quote if anyone asked, roughly.
A common AI résumé workflow starts by parsing that document and then generates on top of it. Whatever was thin in the source can stay thin in everything downstream.
jobhunt starts by asking. Before it writes a word for you, Coach runs an interview in chat, one question at a time, at whatever pace you want. Upload an old résumé as a starting point or begin from nothing. The questions are the ones a decent career coach would actually ask: what did you build, as opposed to the team? What was the number, ballpark is fine? What happened in that gap? For what it's worth, the system finds gaps by doing date arithmetic on your résumé, not by hoping a model notices.
As you answer, a structured profile builds turn by turn in a panel next to the chat. Your words go in as the record, and I mean that more literally than it sounds. Direct quotes are preserved verbatim; the system rejects a "quote" that isn't actually a substring of something you said. Hedges survive on purpose. If you said "roughly forty percent," the profile says roughly, and later documents inherit the roughly. Turning that into "40%" would be fabrication with extra steps, even though the arithmetic checks out.
The part I'd defend hardest is also the least visible: the interviewer is built and tested not to lead you. This is a real failure mode, not a hypothetical. I've written up the concrete example elsewhere, so I won't run it again here. The useful part for this post is what happened next. We turned the failure into a rule, re-ran the interview, and kept the transcript as a regression test. Warmth without flattery is a thing we measure, not a thing we hope for.
The interview also has an honest exit. Say "I'm done" whenever you want. If required ground hasn't been covered, such as the claims you never want made about you, Coach asks once more, shows you what's missing, and composes anyway if you insist. Your red lines then follow the profile around permanently: removing one takes an explicit act by you, and no rewrite can quietly drop it. When you do finish, a sweep pass rereads the whole transcript for anything substantive that never made it into the profile, perhaps a metric you mentioned in passing or the gap explanation. The transcript itself is archived, so the raw material outlives any one rendering of it.
What you get is a career record that's actually yours: your words, your level of confidence, your boundaries. Résumés, cover letters, fit analyses, and interview prep all draw from it. It's also decent raw material for things we don't make, including a LinkedIn summary that doesn't sound like everyone else's and negotiation points you can defend because you said them first.
Twenty or thirty minutes of real questions, sometimes shorter or longer, against years of a compressed document. I know which one I'd rather be generated from.