Quality Review Rubric

Here's the rubric we use in our Quality Review Program. To ensure your document aligns with the rubric, please use this checklist.

A well-crafted resume doesn’t just reflect experience—it translates it into opportunity. Our editorial rubric is designed to ensure every document meets the highest standard of quality, relevance, and strategic impact.

Each section of the rubric focuses on a core area of writing excellence:

The skill summary sets the tone for the entire resume. It’s the candidate’s opening argument—the first thing hiring managers see and the quickest way to establish relevance. This section is evaluated across four dimensions: Targeting, Length, Phrasing, and Keyword/Tech Table.

Exceeds Standards. At this level, the skill summary is tightly focused, relevant, and punchy. Key skills are front-loaded with action verbs and framed around value. Instead of listing duties, the writer synthesizes capability, context, and impact—making the case for why the candidate stands out. Language is varied and purposeful, avoiding repetition of ideas, phrasing, or verbs to maintain reader engagement and maximize clarity.

Meets Standards. Meeting expectations means the summary is mostly aligned with the client’s goals and the job type, but may still include some generic phrasing. It gives the right information—but without much spark. The tone and language are serviceable, but not yet strategic.

Below Standards. A skill summary that misses the mark typically includes irrelevant information, overlaps too heavily with other sections (like the headline), or relies on vague generalizations. For example, phrases like “hard-working and dedicated” tell the reader nothing about what the candidate actually does. It may also suffer from repetitive phrasing or redundant ideas, which dilute impact and signal a lack of precision. An untargeted, repetitive summary undermines credibility and reduces impact.

Mandatory Violations. If the summary contains direct contradictions (such as misrepresenting the client’s actual background) or shows evidence of copying and pasting without tailoring, that’s a serious breach. Other violations include including unrelated content or reusing boilerplate content.

Exceeds Standards. The optimal range—5–6 lines—strikes the perfect balance. It conveys richness without excess, and shows editorial discipline.

Meets Standards. A solid summary runs 4–7 lines. This range allows for enough context to establish expertise while maintaining skimmability.

Below Standards. A summary with fewer than 4 lines or more than 7 lines often feels either thin or overwhelming. A short summary suggests lack of effort or content. An overly long one risks burying key information in a block of text few will read.

Mandatory Violations. Submitting a blank first draft is an automatic red flag. It signals a breakdown in process and accountability, requiring immediate correction.

Exceeds Standards. Clear, concise, and dynamic phrasing elevates the entire document. Writers who exceed expectations vary sentence structure, remove filler, and deliver language that feels tailored and professional. They avoid overused buzzwords and focus on clarity and impact.

Meets Standards. A summary that meets standards has acceptable grammar and some flow, but may include repeated sentence structures, minor redundancy, or flat language.

Below Standards. This includes awkward sentence constructions, "keyword salad" (i.e., a jumble of skills with no narrative cohesion), and grammar issues. Overuse of filler words or jargon also contributes to weak phrasing.

Mandatory Violations. Egregious errors that undermine the client’s credibility—such as factual inaccuracies or severe grammatical mistakes—qualify as critical issues. These reflect poorly not just on the writer, but on the brand as a whole.

Exceeds Standards. Exceeding expectations requires selecting and organizing skills that directly support the client's target role. Writers who excel in this area understand the difference between technical jargon and role-aligned keywords, and they ensure each entry enhances clarity rather than cluttering the document.

Meets Standards. The skills listed are mostly relevant, though may be inconsistently grouped or include some low-impact terms. Some attempt has been made to tailor content, but execution lacks polish.

Below Standards. This section should reinforce the targeting set in the summary. When keywords and technical skills feel generic, unrelated to the job, or appear to have been copied from another resume, the result is confusion and missed opportunity.

Mandatory Violations. Including obsolete tools or fabricating technical skills poses a serious risk to the client’s credibility. This must be avoided at all costs.

Work History is the backbone of the resume—it tells the story of the client’s professional evolution. This section is evaluated across five core categories: Accuracy, Rewrite, Phrasing, Length, and Paragraph & Bullet Strategy/Inclusion of Questionnaire Detail. Each category is essential in shaping a coherent, accurate, and compelling narrative of the client’s experience.

Exceeds Standards. Demonstrates meticulous alignment between resume content and questionnaire inputs. Dates, job titles, company names, and sequencing are not only accurate but thoughtfully clarified where needed. Writers in this tier anticipate questions a hiring manager might have and resolve potential confusion with elegance and integrity.

Meets Standards. Content matches the questionnaire and intake form, with no major inconsistencies. Roles are presented in the correct order, with accurate dates and titles. While there may be minor oversights, they do not materially misrepresent the client’s experience.

Below Standards. Contains noticeable discrepancies, such as inaccurate dates, job titles, or missing roles. These errors suggest a lack of attention to detail and may cause the client to lose trust in the process.

Mandatory Violations. Any form of misrepresentation—such as inventing experience, altering employment dates without client instruction, or including companies not listed in the intake—constitutes a serious breach of quality standards.

Exceeds Standards. Client input is thoughtfully transformed into polished, resume-ready content. Writers demonstrate editorial judgment, reorganizing information for clarity and impact. The result reads as original content rooted in the client's voice, tailored to the job target.

Meets Standards. Client-provided information is rewritten with basic improvement in structure and tone. The content feels more professional than the raw input, though it may still rely on task-oriented phrasing or lack nuance.

Below Standards. Client responses are copied with minimal or no editorial intervention. Repetitive or generic language may be carried over, and content often lacks flow or polish.

Mandatory Violations. Unaltered questionnaire text or overreliance on AI-generated responses that don’t reflect the client’s actual experience violates rewrite expectations. These submissions fail to demonstrate the value of editorial expertise.

Exceeds Standards. Writing is clear, varied, and impactful. Bullet points begin with strong verbs and are concise, professional, and easy to read. Writers at this level balance tone and clarity, demonstrating control over sentence rhythm, parallel structure, and flow.

Meets Standards. Most bullets are readable and grammatically sound. The phrasing may not be particularly dynamic or strategic, but it gets the job done without obvious errors or awkwardness.

Below Standards. Phrasing is repetitive, overly long, or filled with jargon and filler. Bullet points may begin the same way or rely too heavily on passive voice and low-impact verbs like “helped” or “worked on.”

Mandatory Violations. Grammatical errors, unclear phrasing, or structure so poor that it distracts or confuses the reader must be flagged and corrected immediately.

Exceeds Standards. Each role includes an appropriate number of bullets or lines based on the client’s tenure, role level, and relevance. Writers in this tier demonstrate excellent judgment—longer roles have richer content, while shorter stints are concise and efficient.

Meets Standards. Each position typically includes 3–6 bullet points or an appropriate paragraph equivalent. The resume provides enough content to describe the role without overwhelming the reader.

Below Standards. Entries are either too short to convey the client’s contributions (e.g., one brief bullet) or too long to maintain engagement (e.g., excessive lists or multi-line bullets). Length may be uneven across similar roles.

Mandatory Violations. Entire sections left blank or excessively verbose sections that obscure key information violate content expectations and reduce document effectiveness.

Exceeds Standards. Shows clear strategic intent in formatting by applying a paragraph + bullet approach for work history sections. Uses a concise paragraph to summarize job duties, followed by bullets that highlight specific, quantifiable achievements. Content prioritizes readability and impact while avoiding redundancy between duties and accomplishments. Questionnaire details are woven in seamlessly, enriching the narrative and reinforcing relevance.

Meets Standards. Formatting is consistent and functional. Questionnaire information is included and supports the client’s story, though integration may feel basic or unrefined. Repetition is avoided or very minimal.

Below Standards. Uses an incoherent mix of bullets and paragraphs or fails to include important questionnaire content. In some cases, writers default to a template structure without considering whether it fits the client’s background. Job descriptions and bullet points may also repeat information unnecessarily.

Mandatory Violations. Entirely disregarding the questionnaire or submitting a draft with inconsistent or chaotic formatting falls below the minimum standard of care.

The Value Add section captures the intangibles that elevate a resume from functional to exceptional. This part of the rubric evaluates whether the writer has demonstrated editorial strategy, professional formatting choices, and thoughtful handling of stock language and client-specific questions. It reflects the writer’s ability to go beyond execution and bring critical thinking, customization, and polish to the document.

Exceeds Standards. Demonstrates a clear editorial strategy throughout the document. Writers who exceed standards make intentional decisions about tone, structure, and emphasis based on the client's goals and industry. For example, they may emphasize achievements for a client seeking a promotion or streamline technical content for a non-specialist audience. Strategic thinking is evident in how content is ordered, how transitions are handled, and how emphasis is distributed.

Meets Standards. The document is logically structured and generally aligned with the job target. The flow of information makes sense, and while not particularly creative or tailored, the resume presents a coherent professional story. Editorial decisions are solid, if not especially insightful.

Below Standards. The resume feels assembled rather than curated. There’s little evidence of tailoring to the job target, and the document may present experience in an order or style that confuses or dilutes the client’s core value. In some cases, the summary, experience, and skills sections may feel disconnected from each other.

Mandatory Violations. If the strategy clearly ignores the job target or introduces content irrelevant or misleading to the client’s goals, this represents a fundamental failure in quality. Submitting a resume that appears generic, directionless, or repurposed from unrelated past clients may also warrant escalation.

Exceeds Standards. Delivers a visually clean, cohesive, and professionally styled document. Formatting supports readability and creates a strong first impression. Writers who exceed standards use consistent spacing, clean alignment, and a clear hierarchy of headings and subheadings. They strike the right balance between white space and content, and use formatting to subtly reinforce the client’s value—without gimmicks or distractions.

Meets Standards. The formatting is functional and consistent. Fonts, spacing, and bullet alignment are mostly correct, though minor inconsistencies may exist. The document looks professional overall, even if it doesn’t stand out.

Below Standards. Formatting appears careless, uneven, or visually confusing. Common issues include misaligned bullets, inconsistent fonts, poor spacing, or excessive use of bold and italics. The resume may look cluttered or sparse in a way that detracts from the content.

Mandatory Violations. Using file formats that cannot be opened by clients (e.g., .pages instead of .docx or PDF), incorporating images or columns that break ATS readability, or submitting corrupted or unreadable files fall under serious formatting violations. These errors compromise both presentation and functionality.

Exceeds Standards. Writers who exceed expectations go beyond simply answering the client’s intake questions—they integrate those responses into the document in a meaningful way. Stock phrases (e.g., “responsible for day-to-day operations”) are avoided in favor of tailored, specific language. If the client has provided quotes, background, or unique experiences, those are skillfully reflected in the tone or examples used. When appropriate, editorial notes clarify ambiguities without adding fluff.

Meets Standards. Client responses are included, and while the language may lean on standard phrasing, it is accurate and relevant. The writer answers the intake prompts and integrates responses into the resume, though often without refinement or personalization.

Below Standards. The document includes responses to client prompts but does so in a way that feels mechanical or lazy. Stock phrases are used repeatedly, or content may be copied verbatim from the intake. When writers fail to reflect the client’s voice or miss key themes from the intake, the result is a bland, impersonal document.

Mandatory Violations. Failure to include or address client responses at all, use of placeholder text (e.g., “insert here”), or reliance on boilerplate that contradicts the client’s information constitutes a major issue. This signals neglect and reduces the perceived value of the service.

Strong communication underpins a seamless, professional client experience. This rubric section evaluates how effectively and promptly writers engage with internal messages—whether responding to questions, submitting drafts, or participating in revision requests. Clear, timely communication reinforces trust and enables collaborative problem-solving.

Exceeds Standards. Responses are clear, professional, and proactive. Writers anticipate follow-up questions, offer context where needed, and acknowledge next steps. Tone is respectful, solutions-oriented, and aligned with our brand values. These writers are collaborative partners who contribute meaningfully to both editorial and operational exchanges.

Meets Standards. The writer answers all questions appropriately and communicates in a professional tone. Messages are concise and functional, though may lack nuance or initiative. The writer maintains a dependable presence, even if the interaction is minimal.

Below Standards. Messages are vague, overly brief, or require clarification. The tone may come off as disengaged or rushed. Responses might not directly address the questions asked, creating friction or confusion for project leads and editors.

Mandatory Violations. Failure to respond to important messages, use of unprofessional language, or dismissive tone constitutes a communication breakdown. Ignoring messages during active projects—especially revisions or clarifications—can delay delivery and harm the client experience.

Exceeds Standards. Responds to all messages and submits revisions within one business day. Demonstrates a proactive approach to communication and delivery, often responding promptly without needing reminders. This level of responsiveness contributes to a smooth and professional client experience.

Meets Standards. Responds to all messages and submits revisions within two business days. Communication is consistent and timely, meeting the minimum expectations for professionalism and reliability.

Below Standards. Delays in replying to messages and/or sending revisions extend to within three business days. While the project may still progress, these delays create friction and reduce confidence in the writer’s reliability.

Mandatory Violations. Ghosting the client for three or more business days—meaning no replies, no submitted drafts, or no communication during that time—represents a serious breakdown in service. This level of unresponsiveness jeopardizes the client experience and requires immediate escalation.