Resume Guidance for Mid–Senior Engineers Returning to the Job Market

Mid-level: 1 page. Senior+ (10–15 years): 1–2 pages max.

A proven structure:

This is where senior engineers usually fail.

Grouped, concise, honest. Example:

You don't need perfect numbers. Approximations are fine:

• “~30%”
• “tens of thousands”
• “millions of requests per month”
• “primary revenue path”

This is common and not a problem if framed well.

You don't need “Manager” to show leadership.

If you have GitHub projects, blog posts, talks, or internal tooling you can describe publicly, add a small section. This is especially helpful for engineers affected by layoffs; it reframes momentum.

Your resume should seed interview questions, give you stories to tell, and avoid claims you can't back up.

You do not need to explain the layoff in your resume.

This is very real, and it's quietly reshaping how resumes are read and rejected. The advice here is counter-intuitive and especially important for engineers coming out of layoffs.

The Resume Flood & the Rise of Fake / AI-Generated Resumes

Hiring teams are dealing with massive applicant volume, AI-generated resumes optimized for keyword matching, exaggerated or fabricated experience, identical bullet structures, and overly polished but hollow content. As a result, trust is low.

How Resumes Are Being Filtered Today

Red Flags That Trigger “Fake Resume” Suspicion

Practical tactics to avoid the AI resume trap

You can use an LLM to get a hiring-manager-style critique of your resume. The goal is feedback that stresses credibility and clarity, not polish. Use a prompt that assumes a skeptical reader and asks for structured, actionable feedback without rewriting your content.

Prompt (copy the entire block):

You are a senior engineering hiring manager reviewing a resume for a mid–senior software engineering role.

Context:
- The market is flooded with AI-generated and exaggerated resumes.
- You are skeptical by default and looking for signals of real-world experience.
- You care more about credibility, clarity, and impact than buzzwords or polish.

Task:
Review the resume below and provide a structured critique. Do NOT rewrite the resume unless explicitly asked.

Evaluate the resume across the following dimensions:

1. Credibility & Authenticity
- Which bullets feel grounded in real work?
- Which bullets feel generic, inflated, or AI-generated?
- Where does the resume lack concrete detail (systems, scale, constraints)?

2. Seniority Signal
- Does the scope of work match the claimed level?
- Are there clear signals of ownership, judgment, or tradeoff thinking?
- Is leadership shown through action rather than titles?

3. Impact & Outcomes
- Are outcomes and results clear?
- Are metrics used effectively and plausibly?
- Where could impact be made clearer without exaggeration?

4. Technical Depth & Focus
- Is the skill set coherent or overly broad?
- Are there areas where depth should be emphasized instead of breadth?
- Do the listed skills align with the experience bullets?

5. Resume Smells & Risk Flags
- Identify any red flags that might trigger skepticism from recruiters or hiring managers.
- Call out overused phrases, symmetry, buzzwords, or implausible claims.

6. Interview Readiness
- What interview questions would you ask to validate the claims on this resume?
- Where is the candidate likely to struggle if probed deeper?

7. Concrete Improvement Suggestions
- Provide specific, actionable suggestions to improve credibility and clarity.
- Focus on tightening language, adding specificity, or removing weak content.
- Do NOT add new accomplishments that are not present.

Tone:
- Direct, honest, and professional.
- Assume the candidate is experienced and capable.
- Avoid generic advice or platitudes.

Resume:
[PASTE RESUME HERE]