Using AI review

Reading your keyword chips

Covered and missing, with must-haves flagged — plus why hiring bars sit under What this role requires, why some gaps get no suggestion, and why the count is deliberately honest.

When you've added a target job, AI review pulls the terms that posting actually leans on and shows you which ones your resume covers.

How they're grouped

Covered — the term appears in your resume in a way a reader would credit. These carry a check.

Missing — the posting uses it and your resume doesn't.

Must-have — a badge on terms the posting treats as non-negotiable. These are the ones worth acting on first. A missing must-have is a bigger deal than three missing nice-to-haves.

The count is deliberately honest

You'll see a line like 7 of 9 covered. It counts what's actually covered, not what we could round up to.

If two terms are gaps you can't honestly close, the line says 7 of 9 and stays there. We're not going to quietly reclassify them so the panel looks better — a receipts line you can't trust is worse than no line at all.

Requirements aren't keywords

A license, a certification, a specific degree, a named clearance, or a years-of-experience bar is a hiring requirement, not a keyword. Those sit under What this role requires, not in the keyword chips. A check means your resume already states it. There is no suggestion attached — you either hold it or you don't, and there's no honest way to write your resume into holding it.

Some keyword gaps get no suggestion, on purpose

You'll still notice certain missing keyword chips have nothing offered against them. That's not an oversight. If a gap has no suggestion, treat that as information: it isn't a writing problem we can honestly close.

Closing a gap properly

Don't paste the word into your skills list and move on. A term sitting in a list is the weakest possible form of it — recruiters are openly skeptical of broad skill lists, because a list doesn't show how you used the thing.

Put it in a bullet where you actually used it:

Weak: adding stakeholder management to your skills line.

Better: Ran the monthly steering group for a 40-person program, holding four department heads to a shared delivery plan.

That covers the term and gives a reader a reason to believe it. Same word, completely different weight.

If you can't honestly claim it

Leave it missing. A gap you're honest about costs you a few points here; a claim you can't defend costs you the interview and possibly the offer. See we never invent your experience.

Why there aren't more chips

We show a short, defensible set rather than everything the posting mentions. Longer lists push people toward stuffing, which reads as word salad to a human and buys very little from a parser. Even the ATS-optimization industry says returns fall away quickly past a point of coverage.

The full reasoning: why we don't suggest more keywords.

If you changed the target job

Chips and match numbers from your last run were measured against the old posting, so they're dashed out rather than shown as if they still applied. Refresh to score against the new one.

Still need help?

If this didn’t answer your question, you can contact us. We’ll reply by email.