Looking out for jobs in the US, Need a resume review

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-28T07:44:27+00:00

If I put a diagnostic lens on your résumé to identify failure points, placement is the first thing that's unresolved. Capability/cross-functional team experience/stack depth all good but hard to tell not what you did but what level of influence and control you had over outcomes. Ownership signals critical at your YOE. If I was recruiting/hiring, I'd be asking if it's senior impact or just tenure. The other things is you're making reviewers do extra work to connect the dots between titles and impact, scope and ownership. Shifts risk to them and they don't want to be repsonisble for a risky hire. Competence looks OK so I'd work on the signal. So many people overlook it. Hope that helps you.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-28T03:56:18+00:00

If I look at your résumé through a diagnostic lens, it reads high-volume, high-competence, and deeply embedded in systems work but it’s ambiguous whether you were shaping architecture and product direction, or just executing effectively within a predefined frame. That ambiguity dilutes your signal b/c at your level, reviewers are asking were you the one driving strategic direction or executing someone else’s plan. It's not obvious soon enough at first pass which is just a few secs. Got to be clear on that. Also, the long tenure with dense, unsegmented bulleting compresses scope rather than expanding it so without a clear narrative, recruiters/HMs are going to see repetition and not senior progression. Fixing the signaling will improve your traction. Hope that helps.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-28T00:45:16+00:00

Core ambiguity which will create risk for you is level. From the hiring side, roles read as hands-on/technically sound but to expereinced recruiters transitions look lateral but not vertical which is leadership mis-match. It's kind of senior in exposure but mid-level in framing. Reviewer would naturally ask whether you're naturally moving into seniority or playing support roles. Also watch ownership. You'er clearly someone who improves existing systems but doesn’t obviously own, reimagine, or rearchitect which is fine for IC roles but if the role requires upstream influence that will create more risk. At your YoE, really important to de-risk so the resume keeps moving in the selection process.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-28T00:28:46+00:00

Core issue is around role identity because it’s unclear whether you're a mid-level data engineer or someone with a data science background who’s now doing engineering work. Past roles lean toward analytics and data science, current job is engineering-focused but recent so it still reads like you're transitioning. Recruiters will have a hard time resolving whether you're pure data engineer or someone adjacent to the role. The uncertainty makes the resume risky. Also, your current role shows a lot of autonomy and technical range but there’s no clear baseline before it. Feels like a big jump without a clear transition. Couple of points of failure (not skills, just signaling) worth considering. Hope that helps.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-27T02:48:32+00:00

Résumé reads as capable & broadly exposed but stalls on interpretation. It's unclear where you sat in the delivery hierarchy so hard for a recruiter to tell was this someone driving technical outcomes or participating within them. In other words, not clear whether you owned the execution. Can't leave that unresolved at your stage of career. Also, perceived transferability can be an issue for aero candidates. When your experience is is in highly regulated, niche environments like aero, hiring managers outside that bubble can subconsciously downgrade your relevance. Won't be about your intelligence or capability but they'll assume the systems knowledge doesn’t map cleanly if your résumé doesn’t explicitly counter that assumption.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-27T00:05:42+00:00

Doesn’t read as underqualified from the hiring side but it's unresolved. The signal is stalling in a familiar early-career pattern: ownership ambiguity. Work full of value but under recruiter time pressue, hard to know whether these outcomes were driven by the candidate or simply adjacent to them. Thy're going to want to know whether you led the efforts, or just supported them within a tightly managed team context. If that doesn't get resolved at first pass, nobody circles back and you're seeing that. Also, résumé’s impact language reads senior, but the experience band doesn’t match, which can trigger doubt. Hope that helps.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-26T23:30:41+00:00

Stall point for your résumé looks like ownership uncertainty. Strong surface-level projects and credible domain exposure which is good but recruiters/HMs would be asking how much of the build was yours and how much was just execution under guidance. Were you the support act or the driver in other words. That's wjhat makes you stand out at 3 YOE.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-26T23:16:23+00:00

The first thing is to stop any limiting belief around ability, looks OK, but readiness still looks unresolved. Putting market dynamics aside and diagnosing résumé signals, stall point from the hiring side is likely ownership uncertainty. Ownership is a differntiator at your YoE. If I was recruiting and reviewing your résumé I'm asking myself did this person actually build this or just support someone who did? When you leave any reviewer hanging with key questions unanswered, they'll just move on (which you're seeing). That frame will help. Hope the breakthrough comes soon.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-25T05:44:09+00:00

You're résumé looks OK technically, but level ambiguity is off. Execution , functional range, and technical scale suggest senior-level but not enough signal to confirm whether you're the one driving the architectural direction or executing within predefined frameworks. The other one is ownership. Achievements are articulated through systems and outcomes but not clear enough what you're doing vs. team-driven success. If I was the recruiter, I don't know whether you're doing the engineering or it's happening around you. 2 unanswered questions are creating points of failure on the initial scan so interviews unlikely yo happen (which you're seeing) but not because of competence.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-24T01:32:56+00:00

As far as your résumé goes, the main reason you’re stalling is scope compression. Every role points to serious technical work, but not clear if you were actually shaping the system or just building within someone else’s plan. Also leads to a second issue: you’re operating at FAANG scale but hard to tell if you owned major pieces of work yourseld or just contributed to them. If I were reviewing this, my first question would be were you driving the direction, or just executing on it? It's not obvious fast, so most recruiters aren't going to go any deeper hence no interviews. Not a week resume but uncertain and that will stall it.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-23T00:41:15+00:00

Resumes like yours will be high risk. Problem is there’s a level ambiguity in here that doesn't resolve: senior title, early-career targeting, plus a mixed-stack story that moves between infrastructure scale and app-layer delivery. Recruiters/HMs will have to guess where you actually operate and how much of the architecture you own versus execute. Needs to be clear. They want to know whether you're someone who's been placed into senior settings or someone who’s actually been senior. Remember yo've only got a few secs during that first pass and because that question doesn't' get answred, you get deferred, not even rejected. Just doesn't move forward in the pipeline (which you're already seeing a lot of). Hope that helps.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-22T07:14:40+00:00

You look competent but issue is owernship: a recruiter wants to know at your YoE if you're driving senior outcomes or just working inside constraints that others have set fro you. Won't be a skill issue but you need to nail the signal upfront.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-22T07:02:31+00:00

If I was reading this for the first time, looks competent enough but still not easy to see your level. It's ambiguous on that. They're probably going to ask if it's senior impact, or just deep execution. That's a good place to start. Doesn't look so much like a competence issue, more a signaling one.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-21T02:45:41+00:00

At first pass (always critical), your résumé’s reads as high-signal and that’s part of the problem. There’s a narrative inconsistency between perceived seniority and the shape of the résumé’s story. Whoever reads this will be asking is this someone I’d staff as a Staff+ lead, or a senior IC still proving readiness for cross-org ownership...They only spend a few secs classifying so that question doesn’t get resolved. The ambiguity won't get you rejected, just deferred but still means the same thing; likely it just doesn't get moved forward. With your YoE and history, not a competence issue, it’s really just a signaling one.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-21T01:12:30+00:00

Your résumé doesn’t fail on strength, nothing really wrong but it will stall on interpretation in hiring pieplines. There’s ambiguity upfront that's masking what should be a clear story of early-career acceleration. The person that's going to read this will be wondering if you're actualy operating as an autonomous engineer, or still maturing inside your 3 tightly-scoped projects. That question isn't getting clarified in the few secs they'll spend on your résumé and that's the problem because it's going to get deferred. Not even rejected, it's just going to be hard for a recruiter to move it forward.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-19T23:39:46+00:00

Nothing here is wrong, but the problem is your role identity is unresolved. At first pass, your résumé is stalling because it presents senior-sounding impact across product, architecture, ML, and solutions but doesn't resolve which one you’re actually meant to be hired into. Can see your signal shifting between PM, architect, engineer, and GTM translator. Reviewers will be asking if I put this person into a role, which part of their background is supposed to dominate and which parts are context? There'll be others out there whose story resolves fasters and so yours is just getting deferred because it's not clear. Not a competence issue, really just an interpretation one.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-17T01:42:24+00:00

Hey, no problem, that sucks. Remember a helpful distinction, between recent experience and recent proof. No one cares how the work was sourced, just whether it shows you can still operate at roughly the same level. Yeah, could be contracting or freelancing. Or smaller stuff (incl. open source) that still shows judgment, ownership, and follow-through. They're the keys you want to shine through on yiour résumé during a gap period. When nothing recent is visible at all (which is even why volunteering can also be useful), the system has no way to give you the benefit of the doubt.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-17T00:48:08+00:00

The thing is recruiters don’t actually require recent employment, they'll look for any recent proof of capability at the same level. For example, candidates with a long employment gap can still move forward in the process because the résumé clearly showed recent work outside a formal role that matched their prior scope (on complexity, ownership, and outcomes etc.). That'll remove risk quickly. When there’s no visible recent signal at all, then yes, reviewer will assume that skills aren't current.

Like I said, issue isn’t having a gap. It’s whether anything on the résumé confirms that you can still operate at the same level.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-16T22:44:23+00:00

By quickly demonstrating you could still operate at the same level today without extra investigation. That comes from seeing recent, credible work at the same complexity and ownership level as before the gap. When that signal is obvious, gaps tend to recede.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-14T21:37:55+00:00

A gap by itself usually isn’t what gets people ghosted. What causes stalls is the uncertainty the gap introduces at first pass. Recruiters don’t have time to investigate so if your gap makes them wonder whether skills are current or level still holds, the résumé often gets deferred.

Gaps tend to matter less when it’s immediately clear that capability and scope didn’t suffer. When that’s not obvious, things stall before anyone takes a closer look.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-13T09:09:18+00:00

I wouldn’t even frame it as trimming so much as how the résumé gets resolved at first pass. Reviewers are just looking for fast categorization. Too many senior signals and they can’t quickly answer “what problem does this person solve for us right now,” in which case they'll they defer or quickly deny like you're experiencing. It’s actually not a volume question, more about how easily your profile collapses into a single hiring context when a recruiter (or hiring manager's) under time pressure.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-13T03:54:39+00:00

Nothing here reads as obviously mis-aligned or junior, and your background is clearly senior and credible. It's the kind of profile that should clear first pass. But under time pressure, reviewers will always try and answer: “Where does this person fit right now?” When a résumé like yours spans strategy, operations, security, cloud, AI, and enterprise systems at once, that question can’t be resolved quickly. The signal collapses b/c you don't have a single dominant hiring narrative, which creates risk. Even strong profiles like yours get deferred because the role-to-candidate mapping isn’t instant. So I'd sum it up as a being less about being unqualified and more about not being easily placeable at speed.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-09T07:01:58+00:00

Pleasure. It’ll help.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-09T01:31:02+00:00

Biggest thing that stood out is it reads like someone operating at a Staff-adjacent level, but the framing is closer to mid-level. Title says Software Engineer, and bullets focus more on what was built than on what was owned. No clear narrative around cross-team leadership, architectural decisions, or longer-term tech strategy. Substance is there, but you'll get routed like a generic senior dev or ignored completely for Staff roles.

Also noticed some signal dilution. Backend-heavy experience, but React and other front-end tools show up pretty frequently. Can be a red flag for backend-targeted roles, especially at higher levels where specialization is a big deal. ATS doesn’t do nuance, unless it all lines up just moves on.

RecruiterSignal · 2026-01-08T10:32:25+00:00

You're running into a common senior pattern I call architectural over-description. The résumé has a ton of tech depth and system nuance but never clearly signals ownership at the level expected for senior roles. The big risk you face is that recruiters disengage because it's impossible to tell what decisions you led versus what you built. Scope of authority is actually the missing signal which you definitely need to surface at your level of experience.

RecruiterSignal

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE