AI can draft your résumé. A human makes it work.
- Alex Khamis
- Aug 25
- 7 min read
Updated: Aug 26
Table of Contents
What a good résumé writer is actually selling
A quick example: the infosec space
When AI alone is probably fine
DIY checklist (use this even if you never hire anyone)
What my process looks like (so you can compare it to others)
Practical fixes you can do today (based on what I see most)
People ask me a version of this every week: If AI can spin up a clean, keyword-rich résumé in seconds, why hire a resume writer?
Fair question. I run r/resumes and write résumés for a living, so I see both sides. AI has raised the baseline. It hasn’t replaced judgment, context, or accountability.
This post lays out what AI does well, where it usually falls short, what a good writer actually does, and how to decide whether you should DIY, hire help, or do a mix of both.
What AI actually does well
First draft speed. You paste in an older résumé and get a readable draft fast. No blank page.
Surface-level keywording. It can match obvious terms from job descriptions so you don’t miss basics.
Grammar and flow. Typos go away and sentences get cleaned up.
Format scaffolding. You get a structure that looks like a résumé: headline, skills, experience, education.
If your background is straightforward and you already know what you’re targeting, this can be enough to get moving.
Where AI usually breaks down
1) Strategy, not syntax
AI can list everything you’ve done. It’s bad at deciding what matters most for this role at this company. It tends to keep everything and make it all sound equally important. Recruiters don’t read like that. They skim for fit in seconds.
2) Context and scale
“Managed projects,” “led initiatives,” “improved processes”, AI repeats phrases it has seen, but it can’t infer the team size, scope, budget, timeline, or stakes unless you spell it out. Without those, bullets read like filler.
3) Prioritization
Big wins end up buried under routine tasks because the model doesn’t know which line carries weight with a hiring manager. Your 40% cost reduction gets line four. Your daily standups get line one.
4) Calibration to reality
AI will happily overstate. It will invent metrics if you let it. It will lean into buzzwords that sound senior when you’re not ready to defend them in an interview. That’s a fast path to “no.”
5) Role-specific nuance
Different companies care about different things. For offensive security, one team wants depth in exploit dev and OSWE-level web vulnerabilities; another wants purple-team collaboration and reporting to execs; a third wants cloud hardening and attack path analysis. AI won’t reliably choose the right angle without a human drawing the line.
6) Conflicts and red flags
Future dates, overlapping timelines, duplicated bullets across roles, achievements that don’t match titles, claims that exceed scope, AI misses these because it doesn’t understand hiring risk. Humans screen for them in seconds.
What a good résumé writer is actually selling
It’s not “pretty words.” It’s decisions.
Discovery that pulls out proof. You talk through projects. A good writer drills into the parts you skip: scale, constraints, tradeoffs, stakeholders, baselines, impact. That’s where proof lives.
Positioning to a target. We map your background to the specific role family you want. Not generic “leadership” — the three or four competencies that move offers in that lane.
Editorial triage. Cut what doesn’t build your candidacy. Move high-value content up. Merge near-duplicates. Convert tasks into outcomes. Turn weak verbs into actions you can defend.
ATS + human read balance. Enough terminology for search and enough signal for a seven-second skim. This includes layout, file choices, headings, and where numbers sit relative to nouns.
Risk reduction. We strip exaggerations, avoid claims you can’t back up, and fix timeline or scope oddities. The document should survive a skeptical hiring manager.
Coaching spillover. Most clients walk away with better interview stories, a clearer LinkedIn, and language for networking messages. The document is part of a larger system.
None of that requires blind faith in a writer. It’s a process you can ask about and evaluate.
A quick example: the infosec space
Say you’re moving from mixed red-team and appsec work into a Senior Offensive Security Engineer role at a payments company.
AI will grab words like Burp, ZAP, CVE analysis, exploit dev, Python, and “collaboration with developers.” Fine. It might even write a nice paragraph about “AI-assisted vulnerability detection.”
A knowledgable writer will ask:
How many assessments per quarter? Of what depth?
What moved business risk (e.g., privilege escalation in payments, IDOR on payouts, JWT misuse in session handling)?
What changed after your findings (SLA on remediations, pipeline checks, policy updates)?
Who did you brief and what decisions did it drive?
What TTPs and chains match the company’s real threats?
Then the résumé leads with the work that mirrors the employer’s world: payment auth and API attack paths, supported by numbers you can prove. That’s the gap between “good text” and “qualified for this job.”
When AI alone is probably fine
Early career with clear roles. One or two jobs, crisp scope, no pivots.
Internal moves in the same org. Hiring manager already knows you.
Low-stakes applications. You’re testing the market or building momentum.
You enjoy editing and can be objective. You’ll do the trimming and targeting yourself.
Use AI to draft. Then run through the checklist below.
When hiring help makes sense
Senior or executive roles. Stakes are higher, and signal-to-noise matters.
Career pivot or return. You need a translation layer between domains or a gap that needs context.
Complex history. Overlapping contracts, side projects, or a mix of IC/lead roles that needs a clean narrative.
High competition roles. Product, security, data, consulting, FAANG-style funnels.
Time poor. You can gather evidence but won’t realistically do four rounds of edits.
You’re not paying for prose. You’re paying for prioritization, positioning, and risk control.
DIY checklist (use this even if you never hire anyone)
Pick 5–8 target job posts and highlight repeated competencies. Those are your themes.
Write a plain summary that names the role you want and the work you actually do. No fluff.
Restructure bullets by impact. Lead each role with the biggest outcome you can prove.
Add context to every claim. Scale, scope, numbers, timelines, stakeholders.
Cut duplicates and trivia. If two bullets say the same thing, merge them.
Fix risk flags. Dates, titles, scope. If it could raise an eyebrow, address it.
Run a 7-second skim test. Can someone name your role, top three strengths, and one result after a glance?
Match obvious keywords once (tools, domains, certifications). Stop before it reads like a dictionary.
Export to PDF unless told otherwise. Keep layout simple and stable.
Do those steps and you’ll outperform most AI-only drafts.
Common AI misses I see in mod queue reviews
Inflated leadership. “Led teams” when you were the only engineer coordinating with QA.
Vague outcomes. “Improved security posture” with no evidence.
Future-dated roles that make it look like you’re claiming a job you don’t have yet.
Mixed seniority signals. “Architected platform strategy” paired with tier-1 support bullets.
Keyword stuffing. A skills block with 40 tools you’ve touched once.
Misaligned headlines. “Offensive Security Engineer” on a résumé applying to a cloud security hardening role.
Buried wins. The only number that matters sits mid-paragraph.
These aren’t style issues. They’re credibility and fit issues. Humans notice.
What my process looks like (so you can compare it to others)
Intake and targeting. We agree on the role family first. If you’re aiming at two lanes, we decide how to handle it (two versions or one anchored version with an alternate headline).
Evidence pull. We mine projects for measurable outcomes, constraints, and scale. If you don’t track numbers, we estimate with ranges you can defend.
Positioning map. We select the 4–6 competencies that will carry the file with the audience you’re after.
Draft and triage. I research, write, cut, reorder, and rewrite. You get a version that’s lean and defensible.
Iteration. We adjust language until it sounds like you and sits comfortably with what you’ll say in interviews.
LinkedIn and collateral. If needed, we align your profile, brief, and outreach notes so the story is consistent.
That’s the “value beyond AI.” It’s not magic. It’s applied editorial judgment tied to hiring reality.
Practical fixes you can do today (based on what I see most)
Your résumé probably doesn’t suck as much as you think it does. You might just need to fix how you’re presenting the same information.
I see people constantly throwing out their entire résumé and starting over because they’re not getting responses. Most of the time that’s overkill. The problem isn’t your experience — it’s how you’re organizing it.
Three things that kill otherwise decent résumés:
A summary that could belong to anyone. “Results-driven professional…” tells me nothing about your lane or target. Name the role you want and one or two areas where you do real work that map to that lane.
Wins hidden in the middle. If you increased sales by 40% or closed a major security gap, don’t bury it. Lead with it. People skim.
No context. “Managed projects” isn’t helpful. How many? Which teams? What budget? What moved? Add scope, constraints, and outcomes.
What usually fixes it:
Pull three to five job descriptions for roles you want and echo the specific language they share.
Move your biggest outcomes to the first bullet under each job.
Add numbers, team sizes, budgets, timelines, and decision-makers.
If you’ve held multiple roles at one company, group them to show progression instead of looking like a hopper.
I’ve watched people go from silence to interviews by reorganizing what they already had. Same experience, better presentation. The difference between getting overlooked and getting noticed often comes down to alignment, not whether you’re qualified.
Blending AI with a human (a simple workflow)
Use AI to draft from your notes or prior résumé.
Run the DIY checklist above.
If you stall, pay for a critique before a full rewrite. Sometimes you only need a positioning pass and a few stronger bullets.
Keep one master version and derive variants for specific roles.
Track what gets responses and adjust. Treat it like product feedback.
This keeps cost down and quality up.
Deciding without hand-waving
If you’re clear on target roles, have clean evidence, and enjoy editing, you can likely DIY with AI and a strict checklist. If you’re changing lanes, aiming higher, or noticing mixed signals in your draft, get help — whether that’s me or someone else who can show you a process, not just templates.
If you want to see whether my approach works for people like you, read the public reviews: Final Draft Resumes on Trustpilot. No pressure. If you prefer to try the checklist first and circle back later, that’s fine too.
The goal is simple: a résumé that someone can skim and say, “Yes, this fits what we hire for,” and a set of claims you can defend without stress. AI can get you to a draft quickly. A human makes sure it lands.
Author
Alex Khamis is a Certified Professional Resume Writer and Managing Partner at Final Draft Resumes and Resumatic.
He has over 15 years of experience across career services and business communications. He's helped people land roles at companies like The Walt Disney Corporation and Microsoft.
Comments