What you paste is close to what an applicant tracking system extracts — both come from the same text layer in the PDF. So if it looks scrambled here, that is not a paste problem to work around. It is a preview of the parse, and the ATS check will say so.
Saved in this browser's own storage. It never leaves the device, and clearing your browser data removes it.
Checks your resume for the things that stop an applicant tracking system reading it properly. Paste an advertisement as well and it also checks how much of that ad's vocabulary your resume actually contains.
Every sentence about your experience is built from a line that is already in your resume, and the letter shows you which. Where there is nothing to build from, you get a marked blank rather than an invented claim — that is the part you have to write, and it is the part that gets read.
Australian public sector, universities and many not-for-profits ask you to address selection criteria one at a time. A panel scores each separately, so a cover letter that gestures at all of them scores nothing on any of them.
Paste as many advertisements as you like, separated by a line of three dashes. Each one is gated against your profile, ranked, and given its own cover letter and resume gap list. Jobs you are barred from by a stated requirement get no documents — the point is to stop you spending an evening on applications that cannot succeed.
Concrete edits to make your resume fit one advertisement. Every suggestion either surfaces or rewords something already in your resume. Where the ad asks for something you genuinely do not have, you get told that — not told to add the keyword. That is the line between tailoring and lying, and it is where this stops.
An interview is not a random quiz. The questions come from the same advertisement you already have: every requirement is a question, and every gap between the ad and your resume is the question they will press on. The ones you cannot answer are listed first, because that is where the hour goes.
The messages everyone knows they should send and almost nobody does. A recruiter juggling forty applications genuinely loses track, and three specific sentences move you back to the top of a list.
The answers that decide whether you get read
Every published complaint about automated applying lands in the same place: the tool answered a screening question wrong, and did it on every application before anyone noticed. Most applicant tracking systems treat these as auto-reject filters, so a mis-toggled answer kills the application before a person sees it.
The fix is not better guessing — it is refusing to guess. Answer these once, deliberately. Anything you leave blank makes the extension stop on that job rather than invent something. A stop costs a minute; forty silently wrong applications cost the search.