A score you cannot check is a rating, so this one shows its working

Re-measured on 26 September 2026. The two reports on this page were first photographed on 12 September, under rules that have since changed: content is now graded in proportion, and a career written up as projects no longer meets a ceiling. Both reports below are from today's checker, and the second one uses a document that meets a ceiling today.

A résumé checker that returns 68 out of 100 has told you a number and kept the reasoning. You cannot tell whether the missing 32 points are one broken thing or thirty small ones, whether they are formatting or evidence, or whether doing the work would move the number at all. The number is doing the work of a verdict and carrying none of a verdict's obligations, which is the definition of a rating.

The ATS résumé checker prints the sum instead. We ran it twice, on two different documents, and photographed both.

The first report

Parseability 100, completeness 100, content 71, weighted at 30, 30 and 40 per cent, published as 88. Under the card, every check is listed: all five parseability checks and all eight completeness checks passed; of the four graded content rules, achievement quality and measurable evidence passed, and evidence depth and readable volume are marked Review with the points they earned.

The second report printed two numbers

Parseability 92, completeness 30, content 2, weighted to 37, published as 25. The line says why in words: limited to 25 because no experience or education was found. A checker that quietly printed 25 would have left the reader chasing points in the wrong dimension; this one says the page reads and that the evidence is what is missing. The ceilings themselves are explained in evidence ceilings explained.

Every check says what it earned

Under the sum, each check states its result, and the graded ones state their points. On the first report, evidence depth reads 15 of 25 points, seven achievement lines where the full score needs twelve, and readable volume 6 of 20, 162 words where it needs 500. That is the difference between being told a résumé is "a bit thin" and being told exactly which kind of thin, and by how much.

What the report says about itself

Above the score the report states what the number is: how well an applicant tracking system can read this résumé and what it finds in it, not an employer's score, and not a prediction of hiring. No job description is asked for. Those sentences cost the product something, and they are the reason the rest of the page can be believed.

Each row is a different kind of measurement

The three rows on the card are not three bars of the same thing. Parseability and completeness are made of checks that pass or do not, with unequal weights inside them, so one failed check can matter more than another. Content is graded in points, so a row at 71 has partial credit in it rather than a missing rule. Reading the checks under the card tells you which kind of loss you are looking at, and the counts they were computed from sit on the same report, as described in what the checker read.

What printing the arithmetic does not buy you

A transparent measurement is still a measurement of one document against one set of rules. It cannot tell you how a particular employer's software parses a file, because nobody outside that employer can. It does not read the job description. It says nothing about whether the work behind the résumé is any good, and a high score on a document written in four minutes is the proof of that rather than a counterexample. What it does buy you is the ability to disagree with it for a stated reason, which is more than a number on its own allows.