ATS resume checker for QA and SDET roles

What this tool does

It runs two passes over the text you paste. The first is a parse simulation: it extracts your name, email, phone, LinkedIn, GitHub, employment date ranges and section headings — the same fields an ATS pulls before any scoring happens. Anything it cannot find is shown in red, because a field the machine cannot read is a field a recruiter filtering on it will never see.

The second pass is a keyword match against the job description you paste. It checks your resume against a QA-specific term list — Selenium, Playwright, Cypress, Appium, pytest, TestNG, Rest Assured, Jenkins, GitHub Actions, Docker, JMeter, SQL, BDD, Page Object Model, Jira, TestRail and around ninety others, grouped into thirteen categories. It only counts terms that appear in the posting, so you get the match rate for that job rather than a generic score.

How the score is built

100 points, weighted the way rejection actually happens:

• Parseability — 30. A missing email costs 6. No standard "Experience" heading costs 6. No parseable employment dates costs 5, because that is how the ATS computes your years of experience. Layout hazards — tables, multi-column gaps, pipe characters, decorative symbols — cost 4 each.
• Keyword match — 30. Your match rate against the posting, scaled.
• Quantified impact — 20. Counts numbers attached to units: percentages, hours, defects, test cases, releases.
• Action verbs and ownership — 12. What share of your bullets start with a verb like automated, reduced, migrated — minus points for each weak phrase found ("responsible for", "worked on", "helped with").
• Structure and length — 8. Under 250 words is too thin; over 1,000 is too long.

Below the score you get a fix list of up to ten items, sorted by priority — parseability first, keywords and quantification second, cosmetic items last.

When to use it

Before each application, not once. The keyword half of the score is posting-specific, so a resume scoring 82 against one job can score 54 against another. Run it per application and adjust the skills section to whatever that posting actually names. Recruiters commonly filter around a 60–75% match, and the tool shows every matched and missing keyword so you can see which terms you genuinely have and are simply failing to state.

Common mistakes

Adding keywords you cannot defend. Every term you insert is something you can be questioned on for twenty minutes. A keyword that wins the screen and collapses in the interview is worse than no call.

Listing skills without evidence. A term in your skills block and nowhere else reads as filler to a human. Name the tool in a bullet that says what you built with it.

Trusting a text score to certify your file. This analyses the text you paste, not your actual document. A PDF exported from a design tool can yield nothing to a real ATS regardless of what you score here. Single column, no header/footer text, no text boxes, standard fonts, real text — and copying your PDF into this tool is itself a free test of whether it parses.

Leaving out dates. No parseable date ranges means the system cannot compute your years of experience, and experience filters are usually the first cut.