How is the shortlist probability calculated?

The score combines six recruiter-relevant signals: keyword overlap with the job description (35%), CV bullet quality (20%), years-of-experience match against the JD's seniority requirement (15%), CV completeness (10%), length sanity (10%), and absence of UK 2026 buzzwords (10%). The composite 0–100 score is then mapped to a probability band calibrated against Alex's 12 years of UK recruiter experience reviewing 15,000+ CVs and placing 4,000+ candidates. The score is a directional signal, not a guarantee — it captures what UK recruiters scan for in the 8-second first pass.

Is this an AI tool or a rules engine?

It's a rules engine, deliberately. Every signal it measures is auditable — you can see exactly why your CV scored where it did, in plain English. Unlike LLM-based CV reviewers, the tool does not hallucinate, does not cost per use, and does not send your CV to any external AI service. Your CV stays in your browser. The trade-off: rules can spot pattern-level issues (missing keywords, weak verbs, absent metrics) but can't judge the persuasiveness of a sentence. For that, run the result by a human.

How is the recruiter calibration applied?

The signal weights and the score-to-probability mapping reflect what Alex flags in real shortlist decisions: keyword match dominates (recruiters scan for JD terms first), bullet quality and seniority match come next (because they decide whether the CV survives the second read), and length / buzzwords / completeness round out the screen. Below 35% the verdict is 'CV will be filtered'; 35–55% is 'borderline — slow week yes, busy week no'; 55–75% is 'strong — would shortlist on most weeks'; above 75% is 'excellent — shortlist on any week'. These bands are calibrated from Alex's UK placement data, not generic ATS thresholds.

Does the tool match what an actual UK ATS would do?

Partially. UK ATS systems (Workday, Greenhouse, Oleeo, SuccessFactors, Trac for NHS) all do keyword matching as the first cut, which this tool replicates faithfully. Where the tool goes beyond an ATS: it scores bullet writing quality, flags buzzwords, and applies a recruiter calibration that an ATS does not. Where it falls short of an ATS: it does not parse PDF formatting, table structures, or font/heading anomalies that some ATS struggle with. Paste the plain CV text and the keyword/quality scoring will be accurate.

Why is my probability lower than I expected?

Three usual reasons. First, your CV uses synonyms or paraphrased terms but the JD uses specific phrases — the tool (and any ATS) matches on exact phrasing. Mirror the JD's language where you've genuinely done the work. Second, your bullets describe responsibilities ('responsible for managing the team') rather than outcomes ('led 12-person team to ship 3 features in Q3'). Outcomes with numbers score higher. Third, the JD asks for X+ years and your CV either doesn't surface dates clearly or genuinely has fewer years for the role.

Can I use this for non-UK roles?

Yes, with caveats. The keyword matching, bullet scoring, and length analysis work equally well for any English-language role. The buzzword filter is 2026 UK-specific (passionate, results-driven, leveraged, synergy etc.) — these are also flagged in US/AU markets but with slightly different weight. The recruiter calibration band names ('borderline — slow week yes, busy week no') are UK-recruiter language and the seniority matching uses UK conventions (mid-level / senior / lead, not US-style L4/L5/L6).

Will the tool save my CV or send it anywhere?

No. The tool is fully client-side — your CV text is processed in your browser and is never sent to any server. No database, no logs, no analytics on the input text. You can verify this by opening browser dev tools (Network tab) before pasting your CV; you'll see no requests fire when you click Score. The only outbound activity is anonymous Google Analytics 'event fired' for tool usage, which contains no CV content.

How does this compare to Resume Worded, Jobscan, or TopResume?

Resume Worded ($49/mo) and Jobscan ($49.95/mo) both do keyword matching plus a basic CV scorer, similar to what this tool does — for free. TopResume charges $149-$699 for a one-off human review, which is a different product class (a human writes you a tailored review). This tool sits between the SaaS keyword scorers (free + similar) and human review (paid + better). The recruiter-calibrated band names and Alex's verdicts are unique to JobLabs — no competitor maps the score to UK recruiter reading patterns.

Free flagship · Recruiter-calibrated

Will I Get Shortlisted?

Paste your CV + a UK job description. Get a shortlist probability, the verdict from a 12-year UK recruiter, and the three specific fixes that lift you above the cut.

Free No signup 100% client-side Calibrated to 15,000 CVs UK 2026

The recruiter-perspective scoring engine

I've reviewed over 15,000 CVs in 12 years of UK recruiting and placed more than 4,000 candidates. The pattern that decides who gets shortlisted is consistent enough to encode. The single biggest factor isn't whether your CV is "well-written" — it's whether it matches the language of the job description and surfaces concrete outcomes. This tool measures both, plus four secondary signals that decide whether your CV survives the 8-second second-read.

What the score actually measures

Keyword match (35%). The dominant signal. Your CV needs to use the JD's exact phrasing for the skills, tools, and responsibilities. ATS parsers and recruiter eyes both scan for this.
Bullet quality (20%). Each bullet is scored for action verb strength, presence and specificity of metrics, length sweet-spot (80-180 chars), and absence of personal pronouns. CVs with one or two strong bullets and ten weak ones lose to CVs with twelve consistent ones.
Seniority / years match (15%). If the JD asks for 5+ years and your CV's date math says 3 years, the recruiter sees that immediately. Date detection in your CV is part of the score.
CV completeness (10%). Contact info, experience section, education, skills section. Missing any of these drops you out of consideration.
Length sanity (10%). 400-800 words is the UK 2026 sweet spot for a 1-2 page CV. Outside that, you're either too thin or running on the page.
No buzzwords (10%). Passionate, results-driven, leveraged, synergy, dynamic, robust, holistic, transformed, cross-functional, strategic, value-driven, mission-driven — these are the bland-AI markers UK recruiters spot in seconds.

How probability bands map to recruiter behaviour

75%+: Excellent. I'd shortlist on any week. The CV reads native to the role and has the language a hiring manager will recognise immediately.
55-74%: Strong. I'd shortlist on most weeks. Some keyword gaps but the substance is there. Fix the top three missing terms and you're in the top tier.
35-54%: Borderline. Slow week — yes. Busy week with 80 applicants — no. The fixes below will push you up the band.
15-34%: Below cut. The CV is missing too many of the JD's core terms or the bullets aren't surfacing concrete outcomes. Significant rewrite needed before applying.
0-14%: Generic-AI-tier. The CV reads like a template. Recruiters and ATS will both filter it. Rebuild from the action verbs up.

Common questions

How is the shortlist probability calculated?: The score combines six recruiter-relevant signals: keyword overlap with the job description (35%), CV bullet quality (20%), years-of-experience match against the JD's seniority requirement (15%), CV completeness (10%), length sanity (10%), and absence of UK 2026 buzzwords (10%). The composite 0–100 score is then mapped to a probability band calibrated against Alex's 12 years of UK recruiter experience reviewing 15,000+ CVs and placing 4,000+ candidates. The score is a directional signal, not a guarantee — it captures what UK recruiters scan for in the 8-second first pass.
Is this an AI tool or a rules engine?: It's a rules engine, deliberately. Every signal it measures is auditable — you can see exactly why your CV scored where it did, in plain English. Unlike LLM-based CV reviewers, the tool does not hallucinate, does not cost per use, and does not send your CV to any external AI service. Your CV stays in your browser. The trade-off: rules can spot pattern-level issues (missing keywords, weak verbs, absent metrics) but can't judge the persuasiveness of a sentence. For that, run the result by a human.
How is the recruiter calibration applied?: The signal weights and the score-to-probability mapping reflect what Alex flags in real shortlist decisions: keyword match dominates (recruiters scan for JD terms first), bullet quality and seniority match come next (because they decide whether the CV survives the second read), and length / buzzwords / completeness round out the screen. Below 35% the verdict is 'CV will be filtered'; 35–55% is 'borderline — slow week yes, busy week no'; 55–75% is 'strong — would shortlist on most weeks'; above 75% is 'excellent — shortlist on any week'. These bands are calibrated from Alex's UK placement data, not generic ATS thresholds.
Does the tool match what an actual UK ATS would do?: Partially. UK ATS systems (Workday, Greenhouse, Oleeo, SuccessFactors, Trac for NHS) all do keyword matching as the first cut, which this tool replicates faithfully. Where the tool goes beyond an ATS: it scores bullet writing quality, flags buzzwords, and applies a recruiter calibration that an ATS does not. Where it falls short of an ATS: it does not parse PDF formatting, table structures, or font/heading anomalies that some ATS struggle with. Paste the plain CV text and the keyword/quality scoring will be accurate.
Why is my probability lower than I expected?: Three usual reasons. First, your CV uses synonyms or paraphrased terms but the JD uses specific phrases — the tool (and any ATS) matches on exact phrasing. Mirror the JD's language where you've genuinely done the work. Second, your bullets describe responsibilities ('responsible for managing the team') rather than outcomes ('led 12-person team to ship 3 features in Q3'). Outcomes with numbers score higher. Third, the JD asks for X+ years and your CV either doesn't surface dates clearly or genuinely has fewer years for the role.
Can I use this for non-UK roles?: Yes, with caveats. The keyword matching, bullet scoring, and length analysis work equally well for any English-language role. The buzzword filter is 2026 UK-specific (passionate, results-driven, leveraged, synergy etc.) — these are also flagged in US/AU markets but with slightly different weight. The recruiter calibration band names ('borderline — slow week yes, busy week no') are UK-recruiter language and the seniority matching uses UK conventions (mid-level / senior / lead, not US-style L4/L5/L6).
Will the tool save my CV or send it anywhere?: No. The tool is fully client-side — your CV text is processed in your browser and is never sent to any server. No database, no logs, no analytics on the input text. You can verify this by opening browser dev tools (Network tab) before pasting your CV; you'll see no requests fire when you click Score. The only outbound activity is anonymous Google Analytics 'event fired' for tool usage, which contains no CV content.
How does this compare to Resume Worded, Jobscan, or TopResume?: Resume Worded ($49/mo) and Jobscan ($49.95/mo) both do keyword matching plus a basic CV scorer, similar to what this tool does — for free. TopResume charges $149-$699 for a one-off human review, which is a different product class (a human writes you a tailored review). This tool sits between the SaaS keyword scorers (free + similar) and human review (paid + better). The recruiter-calibrated band names and Alex's verdicts are unique to JobLabs — no competitor maps the score to UK recruiter reading patterns.