A resume bullet point generator
built on what you actually did.

Four things in one line: an action verb, what you did, the technical or domain context, and a measurable result. The shape is often written as accomplished X, measured by Y, by doing Z. The verb comes first because the opening two words decide whether the rest gets read — “Built”, “Migrated”, “Cut” all survive a skim, while “Responsible for” describes a job description rather than a person. Domain context is the most underrated part: “built web apps with React” is forgettable, while “built fintech credit-risk apps in React handling 40,000 applications a year” is specific enough to believe and specific enough to find in a database search. The result is the number. Compare “Worked on improving site performance” with “Cut checkout load from 4.1s to 1.3s, lifting completed orders 12%”. Same work. Only one survives five seconds.

It depends entirely on what you ask it to do. A generator handed a job title has nothing to work from but statistical plausibility, so it produces the average bullet for that role — including frameworks you have never used and percentages you never measured. That reads well and fails in the room, because the interview exists to test whether the resume is true. Interviewers ask how you got the 40%, and there is no answer. Pointed the other way, the same technology is genuinely useful: give it something you wrote and ask what is vague, what is missing, what is phrased as a duty rather than an outcome. That is editing rather than invention. This tool only does the second kind. It analyses in your browser for free, and when it rewrites, it may only use facts you typed — a server-side check drops the result outright if a tool or technology appears that you never mentioned.

Not every one, but the strongest always have them, and most people have more numbers than they think. If you never ran an experiment, reach for scale instead of a percentage: how many users the thing served, how many teams adopted it, how many records it processed, how many people you trained, how long it had been broken before you fixed it. Any of those beat a vague claim. If nothing is genuinely measurable, be concrete instead — name the system, the constraint you worked under, or what became possible afterwards. “Rewrote the reconciliation job so finance could close the month in a day instead of a week” has no percentage and is still specific. What you must never do is estimate a figure that feels about right and write it down as fact. Once it is on the page you will be asked to defend it, and that is a worse conversation than not having the number.