Resume Reviews: Expert Insights for Tech Professionals

In the competitive landscape of tech hiring, your resume represents far more than a simple list of experiences. It's your professional story, your first impression, and often your only chance to capture a hiring manager's attention in an increasingly automated recruitment process. The difference between landing an interview and having your resume disappear into the digital void often comes down to nuanced decisions about presentation, content, and strategic positioning.

To demystify what actually works in today's market, we assembled three industry veterans with extensive hiring experience for comprehensive resume reviews: Francesco Ciulla, Developer Advocate at Daily.dev, Scott Tolinski, Co-host of Syntax FM and Executive Producer at Sentry, and Kelsey Hightower, former Distinguished Engineer at Google. Together, they've reviewed thousands of resumes, hired dozens of engineers, and understand both the human and algorithmic elements of modern recruitment.

What emerged from their detailed analysis of real resumes from the tech community was both sobering and actionable. The experts revealed systematic issues that prevent even qualified candidates from advancing, while also providing concrete frameworks for transformation. Their insights span everything from fundamental philosophy to tactical formatting decisions, offering a comprehensive guide for anyone looking to improve their chances in today's competitive job market.

The Foundation: Your Resume Should Tell a Story

Kelsey emphasized a fundamental truth: "Your best resume is your reputation." However, for those building their careers, the resume becomes your primary storytelling vehicle. The challenge lies in understanding that modern resumes must serve two masters: human reviewers and algorithmic screening systems.

"Resumes these days are written for the machines before they're written for people," Kelsey observed. "And I wouldn't necessarily ding the candidates as much as I would say, if you're a person that is interviewing or hiring someone, maybe don't miss out on the part that that's a real person trying their best to appease the algorithm."

This dual requirement creates complexity, but the solution isn't to abandon human connection in favor of keyword optimization. The key insight that emerged from all three experts? Stop trying to be everything to everyone.

"These resumes say, 'I will be anything you want me to be. And I'm no one special,'" Kelsey observed. "Commit to who you are." This means choosing a clear narrative and backing it up with concrete evidence of impact.

Francesco reinforced this point from his hiring experience: "I want to be impressed by your design skill," particularly for candidates claiming UI/UX expertise who then fail to demonstrate those skills in their own presentation.

Activities vs. Impact: The Critical Distinction

The most consistent theme across all three experts was the difference between listing activities and demonstrating impact. Kelsey provided the clearest framework for this transformation:

Instead of: "Maintain automated deployment pipelines and version control using Bitbucket, Docker, and SQL"

Try this: "Reduced development environment setup time by 80% by leveraging Docker-based environments for cross-platform load testing"

This approach immediately answers the "so what?" question that hiring managers are asking. Scott echoed this through his concept of "legitimizers" - unique accomplishments that make candidates memorable. "I'm always scanning these things for legitimizers. Having that in there sticks out."

The key is understanding the business context of your work. Kelsey suggests asking: "What happens if we don't do this?" This might reveal that when pipelines aren't maintained, "we see about 75% more bugs go to production," or that "every time we have an outage on this platform, it costs us about a million dollars a minute."

Understanding this broader context transforms how you present your work. Rather than saying you "maintained deployment pipelines," you can explain how you "reduced production bugs by 75% through proactive pipeline maintenance, preventing costly outages that average $1M per minute in downtime." The technical work remains the same, but the business value becomes crystal clear.

Francesco addressed the common challenge of candidates who don't know their impact: "If you can't answer what the impact of your work is, you can spend more time in that particular role" learning to ask better questions and understand business context. This isn't about staying longer in positions, but about becoming more strategic in how you approach and document your contributions.

Scott emphasized that this distinction separates memorable candidates from forgettable ones. Legitimizers aren't just impressive numbers, but evidence of real problem-solving that distinguishes one candidate from hundreds of others with similar technical skills.

The Skills Section: Quality Over Quantity

All three experts expressed frustration with overstuffed skills sections, but their reasons revealed deeper insights about how hiring managers actually evaluate technical competence. The problem isn't just aesthetic clutter, it's strategic vulnerability that can derail promising candidacies.

Francesco’s observation came from reviewing resumes that listed dozens of technologies without clear evidence of meaningful experience within most of them. The result wasn't impressive breadth, but rather questions about depth and honesty.

The strategic problem becomes clear when Kelsey explains the interviewer's perspective: "When you list these things, you give me permission to go deep on these questions. Most people don't know SQL. Most people don't know how to do outer join. Most people don't understand what an explain plan is."

Every technology you list becomes fair game for detailed technical questioning. Put "expert" next to Git, and suddenly you might face questions about porcelain commands and underlying data structures. List Docker expertise, and be prepared to discuss container networking, volume management, and security implications. The skills section isn't just inventory, it's an interview roadmap that candidates often don't realize they're creating.

Scott advocated for strategic restraint: "Restraint in that section can be a positive indicator." His approach focuses on demonstrating depth over breadth, quality over quantity. The goal should be absolute confidence in every technology listed, with the ability to discuss implementation details, best practices, and real-world trade-offs.

Francesco provided practical guidance for this curation process: "For me, putting that you know ten programming languages, but maybe now you want to work with Elixir. It seems a bit weird to add so many technologies." The disconnect between claimed skills and target roles creates confusion about candidate focus and genuine interests. If you're applying for a React position but your skills section emphasizes PHP and Java, reviewers question whether you actually want the role you're applying for.

Professional Summary: Hook Them Early

The professional summary carries disproportionate weight because it sets expectations for everything that follows. This opening section often determines whether reviewers continue reading with interest or begin scanning for reasons to move to the next candidate.

Kelsey questioned conventional wisdom about leading with years of experience: "When you put four plus years, I'm like, okay, junior. I'm thinking in my brain, junior, this person is just getting started." This reaction demonstrates how seemingly innocent information can create unintended categorization that becomes difficult to overcome later in the resume.

The years-of-experience trap becomes particularly problematic when combined with other positioning choices. One resume reviewed during the sessions combined "four plus years of experience" with claims about "mentoring junior developers," creating cognitive dissonance that undermined both claims. The candidate had genuine mentoring experience, but the framing made it seem inconsistent rather than impressive.

Scott preferred concise summaries that establish expertise without overwhelming detail: "I like a summary. I don't need much longer than this because this is a quick couple. Let me know who he is and what he's about." His approach emphasizes efficiency and clarity, recognizing that hiring managers scan resumes rapidly and need immediate understanding of candidate positioning.

Effective summaries focus on specific value propositions rather than generic phrases like "experienced developer with a passion for building scalable applications." These phrases consume valuable space while failing to communicate anything specific about the candidate's capabilities or interests. More impactful summaries might highlight expertise in performance optimization, experience with specific technical challenges, or demonstrated ability in particular domains.

Francesco emphasized that claims made in summaries must be supported by the detailed experience sections that follow. When summaries promise expertise that work history doesn't demonstrate, the disconnect becomes a liability rather than an asset. This consistency check becomes even more important when candidates claim "excellent communication skills" or other soft skills that should be evident throughout the resume's presentation and content.

Presentation Matters More Than You Think

While technical skills matter most, all three experts emphasized that presentation quality significantly affects their perception of candidates. This influence extends beyond simple aesthetics to fundamental questions about professional competence and attention to detail.

Francesco was particularly blunt about candidates claiming UI/UX expertise: "If you like visual things, I would expect from someone who works on the front-end part, the UI part, something a bit more aesthetically distinct." His expectation isn't unreasonable. If your professional identity centers on visual design and user experience, your own materials should demonstrate those capabilities.

The disconnect between claimed expertise and demonstrated capability appeared repeatedly in the reviews. One candidate claimed to be a "front end and UI specialist" while presenting a resume with poor spacing, inconsistent formatting, and a portfolio website that looked outdated and unprofessional. This contradiction raised immediate questions about self-awareness and actual skill level.

Scott reinforced this perspective from his extensive hiring experience: "If they hand me a resume that's looking sloppy or miss-spaced, that tells me that you don't have attention to detail." The psychological impact extends beyond design roles. Poor presentation suggests carelessness that hiring managers extrapolate to work quality.

The solution isn't complex design or expensive formatting, but consistent attention to basic principles: readable fonts, consistent spacing throughout the document, logical information hierarchy, and proper alignment of contact information. Francesco emphasized practical requirements like ensuring resumes print well in black and white and using appropriate sizing that remains legible.

Broken links particularly frustrated Francesco: "I hate broken links when I am reviewing stuff. You have no idea how much it annoys me." This seemingly small technical issue suggests either poor maintenance of personal materials or insufficient testing before submission, both problematic signals for technical roles.

Platform consistency across LinkedIn, GitHub, and portfolio sites also matters for presentation. When these platforms present different information or visual approaches, it creates confusion about candidate identity and professionalism. Francesco specifically mentioned the importance of using consistent professional photos across platforms to help reviewers confirm they're evaluating the same person.

Education and Experience: Know Your Audience

The experts showed interesting variation in how they view education sections, largely dependent on the candidate's experience level. This creates an important inflection point that many professionals struggle to navigate effectively.

Kelsey was most direct about this progression: "After about ten years, this is the least important thing on the resume now, because now you're experienced." For seasoned professionals, education becomes less relevant while impact and proven expertise take precedence. Continuing to emphasize educational credentials after establishing significant work history can actually signal poor judgment about what matters to hiring managers.

However, the transition isn't simply about years in the field. Francesco suggested that the relevance of education depends on how effectively candidates can connect their learning to practical application. Rather than simply listing degrees and certifications, more effective approaches might explain how specific coursework or projects influenced professional capabilities.

Scott addressed the common question about degree types: "I don't care. For me, I literally don't care at all because if you show me impact, I'm not even caring about what college you went to at all." His perspective reflects a broader industry trend toward skills-based evaluation rather than credential-focused hiring.

For recent graduates and career changers, education sections provide opportunities to demonstrate relevant thinking and problem-solving approaches. The key lies in presentation strategy. Instead of simply listing Computer Science coursework, candidates might highlight specific projects, methodologies learned, or problems solved during their studies that relate directly to target roles.

Certifications present similar strategic considerations. Kelsey suggested taking risks with how these are presented: "Look, I've got a CompTIA certification. Here's why I'm glad I took the certification. And here's how I've used it in practice." This approach transforms credentials from checkbox items into evidence of strategic learning and practical application.

Projects and Publications: Show, Don't Just Tell

When including projects or publications, all three experts emphasized providing access to actual work. Francesco's advice was simple: "Give me the link."

Kelsey explained the reasoning: "If you put that you are an excellent communicator, I'm actually going to spend the time to watch the link that you provide so I can be the on judge whether actually you have excellent communication skills or not."

The key is curation. Don't list every project you've touched, focus on work that best demonstrates your capabilities for the target role.

Common Red Flags to Avoid

Several shared red flags emerged:

Inconsistent Information: When LinkedIn doesn't match your resume, or claimed expertise doesn't align with demonstrated experience.

Generic Descriptions: Phrases like "deliver end-to-end solutions" that could apply to any developer.

Overselling Without Evidence: Claiming "expert" skills or "excellent communication" without providing verification methods.

Poor Attention to Detail: Broken links, inconsistent formatting, or obvious typos.

Jack-of-All-Trades Syndrome: Trying to appeal to every possible role instead of targeting specific opportunities.

The Memorability Test

Kelsey provided a practical framework for evaluation: "Put your resume down and say describe this person. If they can't come up with something easy, then your resume isn't helping that."

Your resume should answer: "What specific type of engineer are you?" rather than trying to be everything to everyone. Whether you're passionate about performance optimization, database architecture, or developer tooling, that focus should be clear throughout your presentation.

Practical Steps for Improvement

Based on expert feedback, here's an actionable framework:

Define Your Narrative: Choose 2-3 core strengths and ensure everything supports this story.

Quantify Impact: For each role, identify at least one measurable improvement you contributed to.

Curate Skills: List only technologies you can discuss confidently in technical interviews.

Optimize for Scanning: Use consistent formatting and clear hierarchy to help reviewers quickly find key information.

Provide Evidence: Include links to portfolios, GitHub repositories, or published work that demonstrates your claims.

Tailor for Roles: Create variations optimized for different types of positions.

Conclusion: Be Memorable for the Right Reasons

The overarching message from all three experts was clear: your resume should make you memorable as a professional, not just another applicant. This memorability comes from strategic choices about positioning, evidence, and presentation that distinguish you from other qualified candidates.

Your resume represents your professional story. The insights from these experienced hiring managers provide a roadmap for making sure it's a story worth remembering, whether you're starting your career or looking to advance. The key lies in understanding how hiring decisions actually get made and positioning yourself accordingly.

This blog post summarizes insights from three separate resume & LinkedIn review episodes, hosted on Twitch by Jason Torres. Find the full videos of the episode and more here: https://www.twitch.tv/jasonetorres