reframe.cv

Genesis

Job postings are not written in the language people work in. Somewhere between the team that needs a person and the advert that goes out, the role acquires ownership, impact, stakeholders and a scope, and the person who actually did the job for four years writes “responsible for the website” and wonders why nobody calls.

Both descriptions are true. Only one of them is legible to the filter on the other end. The gap isn’t competence, it’s dialect — and the people worst affected are the ones who never learned to talk about themselves in the third person for money.

So the tool does the translation. It takes a CV and a posting, and rewrites the experience already in the CV using the vocabulary of the role being advertised. It does not add anything. It does not promote anyone. It says the same thing in the register the reader is expecting, which is the entire trick and, disappointingly, most of the game.

Features

• Posting-specific rewriting — one CV, reframed per role, rather than one generic document sent forty times in the hope that someone squints.
• Line by line, accept or reject — every suggestion is shown against the original and has to be approved. Nothing is silently replaced, and the version that goes out is one you read.
• Nothing is invented. No credentials, no titles, no numbers that weren’t there. If the CV doesn’t contain it, neither does the output — which rules out the single most tempting feature and the only one guaranteed to end badly at interview.
• Impact made explicit — the scale, the surface, the outcome. The parts people leave out because they assume everyone can see them.
• Nameless by default — personal details are stripped before anything is processed. A job hunt is nobody else’s business, least of all the tool’s.
• A finished document at the end, exportable, rather than a wall of suggestions to paste somewhere manually at eleven at night.

Who it’s for

People applying for jobs in a market where the posting sets the vocabulary and the candidate is expected to already speak it. Career changers whose experience transfers perfectly and reads as if it doesn’t. Anyone competent enough to do the job and too well-adjusted to describe themselves as a strategic driver of cross-functional outcomes.

Why not just write it yourself

You can, and you should be able to. The difficulty is that the required tone is one most people find faintly humiliating to produce about themselves, and the ones who don’t find it humiliating are already fine. The tool is there so the person who did the work isn’t outcompeted by the person who enjoys writing about it.

Where it stands

In development, opening as a private beta in small batches, with a waitlist in front of it. The rewriting works. The remaining problem is the interesting one: keeping it honest at scale, because a system that reframes is one bad prompt away from a system that lies, and the difference matters to somebody sitting in an interview being asked to expand on it.