Skip to main content
All case studies

Project case study

Resume Studio — AI Resume Grader

Grades and upgrades a visitor's resume without turning the portfolio into a generic utility dashboard.

Repository not publicly availableOpen live demo

Problem

A public resume workstation for ATS grading, optional job matching, grounded AI rewriting, and LaTeX plus PDF export.

Context

Built as a standalone live project so visitors can grade and upgrade their own resumes without distracting from the portfolio's core hiring narrative.

My Role

AI/ML Engineer, Data Systems Builder & Motion UI Developer

Contribution

  • Implemented role-description analysis with keyword matching, ATS checks, and a transparent fit score.
  • Added optional role matching while keeping a useful general score when no job description is supplied.
  • Integrated NVIDIA NIM behind explicit consent and server-only credentials, with measurable-claim grounding and deterministic fallback.
  • Built escaped, compile-ready LaTeX and an independent styled PDF export path.

Architecture

  • Role and resume input

    Collects a role description and either canonical or visitor resume content.

    Feeds Evidence analyser

  • Evidence analyser

    Calculates keyword fit and selects only canonical projects and proof.

    Feeds Package generator

  • Package generator

    Prepares tailored copy, LaTeX, PDF, and optional outreach content.

    Feeds Review and delivery

  • Review and delivery

    Keeps exports reviewable before download or configured email delivery.

    Terminal stage

Engineering Decisions

Ground generated resume content in canonical portfolio records

Reason: Role tailoring should reorder and phrase verified work without inventing experience.

Tradeoff: The output is constrained by the completeness of the source archive.

Keep deterministic analysis alongside optional provider-backed generation

Reason: Keyword and ATS feedback must remain useful when an AI provider is unavailable.

Tradeoff: The deterministic path is less expressive than a reviewed provider-generated draft.

Outcomes

No measured outcome is documented in the current source archive.

Limitations

  • Provider-backed generation and email delivery depend on valid server configuration and fail closed when unavailable.
  • The fit score is guidance for review, not a promise of recruiter or ATS outcomes.

Stack

  • Next.js
  • TypeScript
  • Prompt Design
  • NVIDIA NIM
  • LaTeX

Evidence

No external evidence is linked to this project.