My CV had just been redone — clean, two columns, badges, a QR code. I thought it looked great. And that's exactly when the doubt creeps in: great for whom? For me, who built it, or for the recruiter who'll scan it in seven seconds between two meetings?
I'd followed the usual advice, the kind you read on every HR blog. "75% of CVs are rejected by bots before a human sees them." "CVs with numbers get 40% more callbacks." Sentences I'd swallowed without ever clicking the source. So before patting myself on the back, I wanted to know one simple thing: what does science actually say about CVs, and what's just folklore copied from blog to blog?
I pointed AI at it. Not to write my CV — I'd already done that (36 iterations with Claude, the story is here). To dig out the real studies, demand primary sources, and flush out the invented numbers. Three research agents in parallel, one non-negotiable rule: no statistic without a verifiable source, and anything that smells like a myth, you flag it. What came back made me throw out half of what I thought I knew.
The myths I almost optimized for
The worst thing about bad advice is when it's precise. A round number, a source that sounds serious, and boom, you build your CV around it. Three examples you've definitely read, and they're all hot air.
