Over the last year or so, I’ve read and given feedback on about 150 resumes. The vast majority of the resumes I’ve looked at are from people in tech, or want to be in tech, and most are from software engineers. Apart from those common traits, I’ve seen a lot of variance, in terms of experience level, educational background, geography, and specialization.
My review process is simple. I usually take about 10 minutes to read through the resume, from a position of total neutrality. Then I write up notes on my observations of what I think the resume owner expressed well, and where I thought they could be more effective. I only encountered a few, less than five, that I didn’t have any constructive feedback to offer. For those, I’ve developed a habit of telling the resume writer what they did well.
It’s been an interesting experience. I find that every resume that I read has something interesting or impressive about it, but sometimes it takes some work to find it. I wanted to learn more about my own tendencies as a reviewer, so I copied the feedback I gave on 41 resumes into a Notebook LM and asked it a few questions. Generally speaking I’m don’t put a lot of trust into LLMs, but I thought this was a good use case. I wanted to find the patterns in the feedback I give, but I didn’t want to read back through all of it.
Please note that I put only my feedback into the Notebook, not any of the original resume content.
The first question I asked was for the five areas I give resume feedback on most frequently. I think the Notebook got it about right.
- Focus on Results and Impact: When describing your experience, emphasize the outcomes and impact of your actions rather than just listing your responsibilities or the tools you used. Where possible, quantify your accomplishments with metrics and use the “situation, action, result” format to clearly demonstrate the value you brought. Focus on the results and positive changes that occurred due to your efforts.
- Improve Clarity, Conciseness, and Readability: Ensure your resume is easy to read and understand. Be concise in your descriptions, shorten long summaries and job descriptions, and remove any redundant or repetitive information. Pay attention to formatting consistency, including font sizes, bullet points, and spacing. Consider using a single-column layout for better readability.
- Be Specific and Provide Detail: When describing your roles and projects, provide concrete details about what you actually did. Avoid vague or generic descriptions and instead use stronger, more definitive language to explain your specific contributions. Clearly articulate the “what” and “why” behind your actions and initiatives.
- Refine Language and Avoid Weak or Overused Terms: Use clear, direct, and impactful language throughout your resume. Avoid subjective terms, overused words like “leveraged” or “spearheaded”, and generic phrases that don’t convey specific information. Focus on using language that clearly communicates your skills and accomplishments.
- Tailor Content and Structure to the Audience and Goals: Customize your resume for each specific job application by highlighting the skills and experiences that are most relevant to the target role. Consider reordering sections to prioritize the most important information and define any technical terms or jargon that your audience might not be familiar with.
I asked the Notebook what the most effective feedback I gave was. I had to filter out a bit more noise than from the first question, but I was able to pick out a few things that made sense. Here’s what the Notebook said was my best feedback:
- Emphasizing the importance of quantifying accomplishments and focusing on the results and impact of actions. This was a recurring theme throughout your feedback. You consistently urged the resume writers to include measurable outcomes for their achievements, asking “What were the metrics?”, “Where did you start and where did you end?”, and “What was the outcome?” [the sources collectively emphasize this point]. You suggested using the “situation, action, result” format to better highlight impact.
- Urging for specificity in describing actions and contributions. You frequently noted that descriptions of work experience were too vague and lacked detail about what the individual actually did. You advised using more definitive language rather than passive terms like “contributed to” or “ensured that”…. You asked for clarification on the specifics of their role and the tasks they performed, such as asking what “Engineered a large-scale real-time tool” actually entailed.
- Advising on clarity, conciseness, and tailoring the resume for the target audience. You provided significant feedback on improving the readability of the resumes, including suggestions on formatting, font, and spacing …. You recommended reducing wordiness and being more direct. You also advised removing redundant or repetitive content.
Please note those last two sentences; it seems that NotebookLM is not without a sense of irony.
In the spirit of improving as a reviewer, I also asked the Notebook for examples of least effective feedback I gave. Like the previous answers, I had to disregard a little of the response, but most of it was helpful.
- Purely subjective statements without further explanation: For instance, in source1 , stating “I personally dislike words like ‘spearheaded’ because I find it difficult to understand what you actually did” is somewhat subjective. While the underlying point about needing more specificity is valid and actionable, the initial statement of personal dislike isn’t as helpful on its own. A better approach would be to directly explain why the word is weak (e.g., it’s vague and doesn’t convey concrete actions or results).
- Uncertain or hesitant suggestions: In source3 , the feedback “You could almost consider having a highlights section… I don’t think I’ve recommended this your style of resume before but I think in your case it might work. Up to you to try, of course” is less directive. While offering options is good, the lack of strong conviction makes it less compelling and potentially harder for the resume owner to prioritize.
- Potentially confusing or unclear observations: In source7 , “Also it looks like you might be using multiple fonts and font sizes, though I can’t tell exactly” is less helpful because of the uncertainty. Definitively identifying the issue and providing specific examples would be more actionable for the resume owner.
So I think what NotebookLM gave me was pretty useful, but the caveat is that the input was entirely content that I had written myself, and I knew exactly what I was looking for. The one bit that was genuinely insightful was the reflection on my own areas of improvement.
If you’d like me to take a look at your resume, I’d be happy to do so. You can email me at patorick002@gmail.com.