AI rejects your resume in seconds, but there’s a format hack that will get you through

Mehdi Ghazzai

In India’s company hiring, your resume is judged twice in seconds, first by software, then by a human. The software, an Applicant Tracking System (ATS), doesn’t have taste; it has structure. If it can’t read you, you don’t exist. This is how to write for the machine without losing the human, and why AI, if used well, is your edge.

A candidate uploads a beautiful two-column resume, heavy on icons and boxes. The system files it, fails to recognise half the terms that matter, and the application never surfaces. The same candidate converts to a single column, names the tools the job repeats, and rewrites one line with a measurable outcome. This time the parser reads it cleanly. The recruiter finally sees it.

Open a careers page, upload a resume, and the first reader isn’t a person. The ATS ingests the file, extracts the text, maps it to fields: name, education, skills, experience, dates, and drops everything into a searchable database. It’s infrastructure. But this moment decides whether you are findable or forgotten.

Most resumes lose the race here because they are built for the eye, not the extractor. Elegant two columns, boxed text, and icon labels look tidy to you and unreadable to a parser. When structure fails, quality never reaches the recruiter. The physics are simple.

Recruiters search by the language of the job description. If the role repeats specific tools and skills and those exact words don’t appear where the parser expects them, the system can’t connect the dots, and the human never sees the proof that would have persuaded them. The plain resume beats the pretty one because structured text travels; decoration doesn’t.

There’s a 30-second truth test that removes guesswork. Export the resume, select all, copy, and paste into a blank document. If the order breaks, headings vanish, or characters turn to noise, assume the parser will stumble too. Switch to a single column. Replace boxes with clean text. Keep the content. Make it readable by the system that reads you first. When the paste reads like clean prose, you’ve protected yourself against most parsing losses, and earned the right to think about style.

Also read Universities need new AI, evaluation policies: Jindal Global Law School student who sued over results

Write for the parser, then for the reader

Treat the job description like a specification. Read it like a contract. Lift the employer’s exact terms, tools, methods, domains, verbs, only where they honestly describe your work. AI is useful here as a fast research assistant: let it surface the phrases the JD repeats and compress clumsy lines. Never let it invent what you didn’t do. Place those terms where both readers look first: the opening line of a relevant project, the first line of a role, the skills line above the fold. That’s alignment, not stuffing.

Responsibilities don’t sell; results do. “Responsible for weekly reports” is a shrug. “Built the weekly sales report with automation, cut preparation time from three hours to 40 minutes, shipped it as a live dashboard” is a decision. One sentence does three jobs at once. It gives the system nouns it can index, gives the manager a repeatable outcome, and gives you a claim you can defend at interview without blinking. If there is safe public proof, a redacted screenshot, a short demo, a portfolio link, add it. Software can’t click, but people do.

Use AI to pressure-test structure in a way no friend will. Paste the resume’s plain text into a chat and ask it to reconstruct the document as fields: name, contact, education, skills, experience, dates. If the model struggles, layout is the problem, not talent. Then ask the harder question: if a recruiter searched for two core terms from the JD, which lines in this resume would actually match? If the answer points to a buried sentence or hesitates altogether, move proof upward before polishing prose. The order of information isn’t decoration, it’s discoverability.

Voice matters. AI is excellent at tightening syntax and catching the grammar your eyes skip at midnight, but it is terrible at sounding like you. Use it to compress, not to perform. If a sentence returns swollen with adjectives, cut them. If a tool fabricates achievements, delete them. A resume that sounds AI-written is a red flag.

When layout, language, and placement finally align, read the page aloud. Lines that try to impress a machine should be rewritten for people, lines that sound like small talk should be rewritten for decisions.

New gatekeepers: AI agents, scoring, and how to win fairly

The last mile is ranking. AI agents now score resumes against the job and surface a shortlist before anyone discusses “fit.” They begin with the same raw steps as ATS: extract text, normalise fields, then look for evidence that aligns with the role: titles that map to a searchable taxonomy, skills that mirror the posting’s language, projects that place the right nouns near the top, dates that signal recency, outcomes that imply competence.

Also read AI Engineering Courses: Will ‘new-age’ programmes help BTech graduates in testing times?

Many systems compute a similarity score between the job description and the resume, then layer simple rules on top. The algorithm isn’t judging potential, it is scoring evidence it can read. Your job is to make that evidence unambiguous. Alignment is the play here, executed precisely. None of this is a hack. It is the discipline of giving the system the same truth a recruiter will reward.

Let accuracy be your advantage. When resume, LinkedIn, and portfolio tell the same story in the same nouns and verbs, employer-side AI rewards consistency instead of catching you out.

If this sounds mechanical, good. A ranked list is mechanical. The craft is choosing which truths to put where. Put the role’s language where machines read first, and the outcome where a manager can repeat it. Keep only the claims you can defend and remove the rest. Do that, and your name tends to land where it belongs: on the shortlist.

Mehdi Ghazzai is a French-Tunisian expert in strategic communication and AI systems.