Skip to main content
Glama

GitHub Resume Assistant

CI

An MCP server that connects Claude to your real GitHub activity and tells you what to build and ship publicly to make your resume credible — grounded in your actual contribution history, not generic advice.

Most resume tools critique the words on the page. This one looks at what you've actually built (and haven't), finds the gap between your resume's claims and your public GitHub, and prescribes a ranked plan of shippable projects to close it.

Why it exists

Engineers improving their resume today paste it into ChatGPT and wing it. ChatGPT can't see your real work and can't tell you what to build. This tool can — by bridging Claude to the GitHub API. Full rationale in docs/PRODUCT.md.

Related MCP server: GitHub MCP Server

The three tools

Tool

What it does

fetch_github_repos()

Pulls your GitHub profile, repos, stars, languages, recency.

analyze_resume(text)

Finds which resume claims your public GitHub does / doesn't back up.

suggest_projects()

Prescribes a ranked 30-day plan of projects to prove your strongest claims.

Status

v1.0 — shipped. All three tools work end-to-end, and the repo is production- polished: retry/backoff and rate-limit handling on the GitHub API, config via env vars, a test suite passing in CI (ruff + mypy + pytest), and a Docker image that builds. See docs/ROADMAP.md for what each version includes and docs/WRITEUP.md for the short story of why it's built this way.

Shipped: v0.1 walking skeleton (fetch_github_repos), v0.2 the gap finder (analyze_resume), v0.3 the prescription (suggest_projects), and v1.0 production polish.

What analyze_resume does (v0.2)

Given your resume text and a GitHub username, it:

  1. Extracts the strongest, most concrete claims from the resume (via Claude).

  2. Cross-references each claim against your real public repositories.

  3. Returns a gap report — which claims have public GitHub evidence and which are gaps to close.

If your public GitHub is empty or thin — the common case when your real work lives in private company repos — it degrades gracefully and frames every claim as a gap to close, never "nothing found".

Results are cached in SQLite so re-analyzing the same resume doesn't re-hit the Anthropic API. In Claude Desktop, ask: "analyze my resume against my GitHub" and paste your resume + username.

What suggest_projects does (v0.3 — the star tool)

Given your resume text and a GitHub username, it builds the same gap report as analyze_resume, then prescribes what to build next:

  1. Reuses the gap report (which claims your public GitHub does / doesn't back up).

  2. Asks Claude for candidate shippable projects grounded in that report.

  3. Ranks them in pure core/gaps first, quicker wins earlier — into a 30-day plan.

Each suggestion is tied to a concrete resume claim it would prove, sized ("a weekend" / "a week"), and scoped (what to deliberately skip so it ships). The empty-GitHub case is the main case: instead of "nothing to show", it prescribes starter projects that build public credibility from scratch. Candidates are cached in SQLite so re-running the same gap report doesn't re-hit the Anthropic API.

In Claude Desktop, ask: "what should I build to make my resume credible?" and paste your resume + username.

The web app (v2.0–v2.3 — no install)

The same engine, a second front door. Job-seekers don't install MCP servers, so there's a Next.js + TypeScript frontend (frontend/) calling a Flask JSON API (resume_assistant/web/) that's a thin adapter over the identical core/ logic (build_gap_report + build_project_plan) — upload your resume (PDF/DOCX), type a GitHub username, and get the gap report + ranked 30-day plan. The empty-GitHub case is the main case — it renders a build plan, not "nothing found".

As of v2.3 the UI and API are two separately-runnable, separately-deployable processes; core/ never imports Flask or knows the frontend exists.

Run both locally:

# Terminal 1 — the JSON API (after `pip install -e ".[dev]"` and setting
# ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, see below)
python -m resume_assistant.web.app
# serves http://127.0.0.1:5000/api/analyze

# Terminal 2 — the frontend
cd frontend
npm install
cp .env.local.example .env.local   # NEXT_PUBLIC_API_URL defaults to the API above
npm run dev
# open http://127.0.0.1:3000

ANTHROPIC_API_KEY is required; GITHUB_TOKEN is optional (a higher GitHub rate limit); FRONTEND_ORIGIN (defaults to http://127.0.0.1:3000) scopes the API's CORS to the frontend's origin — set it to your deployed frontend's URL in production. Each claim is graded against your real repo code — parsed dependency manifests, the recursive file tree, language breakdown, and README — and earns one of three honest verdicts: backed (public code proves it, citing the specific files), not shown yet (a gap to close), or not verifiable from public code (claims like private/enterprise usage, traffic, or latency that public code structurally can't prove).

Rate limits without a token. Grounding reads each repo's code, so analysis makes several GitHub calls per repo. Unauthenticated, a profile with many repos can exhaust the rate limit — you'll get a friendly "set a GITHUB_TOKEN" message rather than a crash. Setting a token raises the limit dramatically.

Deploying (free tiers)

Two services, deployed separately:

  • API (Render, free web service) — this repo includes render.yaml; connect the repo in the Render dashboard as a Blueprint, then set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, GITHUB_TOKEN, and FRONTEND_ORIGIN (your Vercel URL) in its environment tab. Runs via gunicorn.

  • Frontend (Vercel, free tier) — import this repo, set the project's Root Directory to frontend/, and set NEXT_PUBLIC_API_URL to your Render URL. Vercel auto-detects Next.js; no extra config needed.

Load & performance

  • Latency. Grounding makes several sequential GitHub + Anthropic calls per repo (evidence fetch, then LLM-graded verdicts), so a full analysis can take tens of seconds — often longer on Render's free tier (0.1 CPU). Budget for it rather than expecting a snappy response.

  • Timeouts. render.yaml runs gunicorn with --timeout 120 because the default 30s is routinely exceeded under the free tier's CPU limits; without it gunicorn SIGKILLs the worker mid-request. /api/analyze/stream (SSE) exists so the frontend can show real progress instead of a blank spinner for that whole window.

  • Rate limits. The API applies per-IP limits via Flask-Limiter: 10 requests/hour on /api/analyze and /api/analyze/stream (the routes that burn GitHub + Anthropic quota), 60/hour by default elsewhere. Limits are tracked in-memory, which only holds because Render's free tier runs a single gunicorn worker — scaling to multiple workers would need a shared store (e.g. Redis) instead.

Tech stack

  • Backend: Python 3.11+ with the official mcp library; Flask (flask-cors) for the v2.3 JSON API

  • Frontend: Next.js + TypeScript (App Router), plain CSS — no UI framework

  • GitHub REST API (requests)

  • Anthropic API (latest Claude models — claude-sonnet-5 / claude-opus-4-8)

  • SQLite for caching (from v0.2)

  • pytest for backend testing, ruff + mypy for backend quality; ESLint + tsc for the frontend

Getting started (dev)

# 1. Create and activate a virtualenv
python -m venv .venv && source .venv/bin/activate   # (Windows: .venv\Scripts\activate)

# 2. Install the package with dev/test extras
pip install -e ".[dev]"

# 3. Configure secrets (see note below)
cp .env.example .env      # GITHUB_TOKEN optional; ANTHROPIC_API_KEY required for analyze_resume

# 4. Run tests
pytest

GITHUB_TOKEN is optional. The GitHub REST API works unauthenticated, just with a lower rate limit. Set a token (a fine-grained token with public read access is enough) to avoid hitting that limit.

ANTHROPIC_API_KEY is required for analyze_resume. ANTHROPIC_MODEL defaults to claude-sonnet-5 (swappable). CACHE_PATH is optional — the SQLite cache defaults to ./.cache/resume_assistant.db.

Registering the server in Claude Desktop

The server speaks MCP over stdio. Add it to your Claude Desktop config file:

  • macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

  • Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "github-resume-assistant": {
      "command": "/absolute/path/to/.venv/bin/resume-assistant",
      "env": {
        "GITHUB_TOKEN": "your_github_token_here",
        "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY": "your_anthropic_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

resume-assistant is the console script installed by pip install -e ".[dev]". On Windows the path is ...\.venv\Scripts\resume-assistant.exe. If you'd rather not rely on the script, use your interpreter directly instead:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "github-resume-assistant": {
      "command": "/absolute/path/to/.venv/bin/python",
      "args": ["-m", "resume_assistant.server.app"],
      "env": {
        "GITHUB_TOKEN": "your_github_token_here",
        "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY": "your_anthropic_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

Fully quit and reopen Claude Desktop, then ask: "show me the GitHub repos for octocat" — Claude will call fetch_github_repos and return the real data.

Run with Docker

Prefer not to manage a local Python environment? Build the image and run the server in a container. Secrets are passed at runtime — never baked into the image.

# Build
docker build -t resume-assistant .

# Run (the server speaks MCP over stdio, so keep STDIN open with -i)
docker run -i --rm \
  -e GITHUB_TOKEN=your_github_token_here \
  -e ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=your_anthropic_key_here \
  resume-assistant

The SQLite cache lives inside the container and is discarded when it exits (--rm). To persist it across runs, mount a volume and point CACHE_PATH at it, e.g. -v resume-cache:/app/.cache -e CACHE_PATH=/app/.cache/resume.db.

To use the container from Claude Desktop, set the command to docker:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "github-resume-assistant": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": [
        "run", "-i", "--rm",
        "-e", "GITHUB_TOKEN",
        "-e", "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY",
        "resume-assistant"
      ],
      "env": {
        "GITHUB_TOKEN": "your_github_token_here",
        "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY": "your_anthropic_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

Passing -e GITHUB_TOKEN (no =value) forwards the variable from the env block above into the container, keeping the token out of the args list.

For contributors (and future you)

This repo is built with a strict, self-enforcing workflow. If you use Claude Code here, it reads CLAUDE.md and follows a skill chain:

/plan-first → /implement → /test → /self-review → /commit-push → /open-pr → /review-pr

The rule: no code before the approach is validated. See the docs:

License

MIT — see LICENSE.

Available Tools

3 tools
analyze_resumeA

Find which resume claims a GitHub profile does and doesn't back up.

Extracts the strongest, most concrete claims from the resume, cross-references them against the user's real public repositories, and returns a gap report: which claims have public GitHub evidence and which are gaps to close. Handles an empty or thin GitHub gracefully — that's the common case for engineers whose work lives in private repos, and the report frames it as the gap to close.

Args: resume_text: The full text of the resume to analyze. username: The GitHub login whose public repos ground the analysis.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYes
resume_textYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses key behaviors: it extracts strong claims, cross-references against public repos, and returns a gap report. It also gracefully handles empty GitHub profiles, framing it as a gap. Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full burden and does so well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured: a clear opening sentence, followed by a concise elaboration of the analysis process and edge case handling. No redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (likely defining the gap report), the description provides sufficient context for typical use. It covers edge cases (empty GitHub) and the overall process. Missing details like input format requirements or size limits, but these are minor given the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains both parameters: 'resume_text' as the full text of the resume, and 'username' as the GitHub login. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema property names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find which resume claims a GitHub profile does and doesn't back up.' It specifies the action (find, cross-reference) and resource (resume claims vs. GitHub profile). This differentiates it from siblings like fetch_github_repos and suggest_projects, which have distinct functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used to analyze resume claims against GitHub profiles but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, relying on implied context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

fetch_github_reposA

Fetch a GitHub user's public profile and repositories.

Use this to ground resume advice in someone's real GitHub activity: it returns their profile summary plus every public repo with stars, primary language, and creation / last-push dates. Handles users with no public repositories gracefully.

Args: username: The GitHub login to look up (e.g. "octocat").

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses return data (profile + repos, stars, language, dates) and edge case handling, despite no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences plus Args section, no extraneous words, front-loaded purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With output schema present, description adequately covers return values and edge cases; complete for a simple fetch tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% coverage, but description includes detailed param documentation with example ('octocat').

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb ('Fetch'), resource ('GitHub user's public profile and repositories'), and no sibling ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit use case ('ground resume advice') and graceful handling of empty repos, but no explicit when-not or alternatives (none needed).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

suggest_projectsA

Prescribe a ranked 30-day plan of projects to make a resume credible.

Builds the resume-vs-GitHub gap report, then prescribes specific, shippable projects to close the highest-value gaps: each is tied to a concrete resume claim it would prove, sized ("a weekend" / "a week"), and scoped (what to skip). This is the star tool — the prescription, not just the diagnosis. Handles an empty or thin GitHub as the main case: it prescribes what to build from scratch rather than reporting that there's nothing to show.

Args: resume_text: The full text of the resume to ground suggestions in. username: The GitHub login whose public repos ground the analysis.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
usernameYes
resume_textYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Given no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool's process (builds gap report, prescribes projects) and edge case handling (empty GitHub). It does not mention side effects or limitations, but for a suggestion tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then elaborating on process and edge cases. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present (so return values are covered elsewhere), the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, edge cases, and output nature (ranked plan with sized/scoped projects). It is complete for a 2-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explains the role of each parameter ('resume_text' grounds suggestions, 'username' grounds analysis) beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 0%, this adds necessary meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool prescribes a ranked 30-day plan of projects to make a resume credible. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (analyze_resume and fetch_github_repos) by being the 'prescription, not just the diagnosis.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides good usage context, indicating it should be used after diagnosis and highlighting that it handles empty GitHub profiles. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools directly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.1
    • Addedanalyze_resume
    • Addedsuggest_projects
  2. 1 tool updatev0.1.0
    • First observedfetch_github_repos

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: fetching repos, analyzing resume claims, and suggesting projects. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (analyze_resume, fetch_github_repos, suggest_projects).

Tool Count5/5

With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—fetching data, diagnosing gaps, and prescribing projects. No unnecessary tools.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full workflow: retrieving GitHub data, analyzing resume claims, and suggesting projects. No obvious missing functionality.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An MCP server that gives Claude Desktop complete intelligence about any public GitHub repository. Research libraries, compare packages, audit dependencies, and explore codebases through natural conversation.
    1
    MIT
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A working MCP server that connects to the real GitHub API, enabling users to manage repositories, issues, pull requests, and more through natural language in Claude Desktop.
    -
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    An MCP server that transforms Claude into an honest CV co-pilot, mechanically verifying all claims against your actual experience through a structured truth base.
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    An MCP server that gives Claude live access to your GitHub workspace — PR reviews, issue triaging, repo search, and weekly digest reports through natural language.
    7
    MIT

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/justomsharma/github-resume-assistant'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server