Launched this week
NextOrbit
Advanced AI resume tailoring & job pipeline tracking.
27 followers
Advanced AI resume tailoring & job pipeline tracking.
27 followers
Stop fighting AI hallucinations on your resume. NextOrbit features a multi-stage AI tailoring engine that scores, refines, and perfectly aligns your resume to the ATS, while strictly verifying that your metrics and experience are never fabricated. Once your application is dialed in, track your progress using our streamlined, self-managed job pipeline.
on the hiring side of this, i wonder about the second-order effect. if everyone tailoring against the same ats systems converges on the same keyword patterns and phrasing, resumes start looking more alike to a human reader even though the no-fabrication guardrail is solid. beating the bot and standing out to the person reading after the bot feel like they could pull in opposite directions
@galdayan
Thank you, that is a clever question, and I think you are right to think about that balance.
If a tool only optimises for ATS matching, you can definitely end up with resumes that all start to sound the same. That is not what I want NextOrbit to do.
The way I think about it is that ATS alignment is the first gate, not the whole strategy. If your resume never gets through the filter, a human never sees it. But if it gets through by becoming a generic keyword-stuffed document, that is not really a win either.
What NextOrbit tries to do is show where your resume is under-signalling for a role, then help you close that gap using your own experience. The keywords matter, but they need to be connected to something real. If the role cares about stakeholder management, systems design, or compliance, and you have genuinely done that work, the resume should make that clear. But it should still sound like your career, not like the same template everyone else is using.
That is also why the anti-fabrication guardrail matters to me. It keeps the output anchored to what you actually did, so you are not walking into an interview with a resume you can’t defend.
So yes, beating the bot and standing out to the person can pull in opposite directions. NextOrbit is trying to sit in the middle: help people get through the automated layer, while keeping enough real detail and personal signal that a human reader still sees the person behind the resume.
Thanks again for asking this, I really appreciate the thoughtful angle.
@ddemetriou9 "first gate, not the whole strategy" is a good way to frame it, that resolves the tension for me. anchoring the rewrite to under-signalled parts of the real experience rather than just injecting keywords is the part that actually differs from the tools that just stuff resumes. good luck with the launch
@galdayan Thank you, I appreciate it.
How does the verification step actually catch fabricated metrics in practice, especially if someone starts with a resume thats already a bit loose with the numbers?
@kezbanr0p1
Great question. I’d frame it less as "the system can prove every number is true" and more as "the system tries very hard not to invent or inflate numbers during tailoring."
If someone uploads a resume that already has loose metrics, NextOrbit can’t magically verify those against the real world. What it can do is treat the user’s existing resume and career details as the source of truth, then make sure the tailored version doesn’t drift beyond that evidence.
So in practice, if a number is not supported by the user’s own background, the system won’t confidently create it. It will usually keep the language qualitative, soften the claim, or push the user to add more concrete evidence.
The goal is not to manufacture a shinier version of someone’s career. It’s to help them present the strongest honest version of their experience, while reducing the common AI failure mode of making claims sound more specific than the evidence allows.
Thank you so much for your interest, and for the very good question.
how does the verification step actually catch fabricated metrics when the same ai that drafted them is the one checking?
@mertcan815955
Thank you so much for your interest, and that's a very good question.
The important thing is that we don't treat the first AI draft as automatically trustworthy. The draft is checked against the user's underlying career evidence, not just against itself.
One thing NextOrbit does well is let users build and store that evidence in more than one place, not just in the resume. They can capture role details, projects, achievements, and supporting career notes over time, so the AI has a stronger evidence base to work from instead of trying to infer everything from a single document.
We can't stop a human from fabricating information in their own resume, and NextOrbit can't independently verify someone's real-world employment history. But we can stop the AI from adding new claims, metrics, or impact that the user did not actually provide.
That distinction matters a lot. There's nothing worse than getting an interview based on a bullet point you don't really understand, then being asked about it and realizing the AI has invented a number, project scope, or achievement you can't defend.
So if the generated version says something like "reduced onboarding time by 45%," the verification step looks for whether that kind of claim is actually supported by the resume/profile material the user provided. If the evidence only says "improved onboarding," the system should not accept the more specific metric as grounded.
The goal is to help people present the strongest honest version of their experience, not manufacture a better-sounding one.
Gave NextOrbit a quick spin on an old resume and the scoring breakdown was surprisingly specific about keyword gaps, plus the no-fabrication guard makes me actually trust the rewritten bullets instead of wondering what got invented.
@ykwqej
Thank you so much for giving it a spin. That trust piece is honestly one of the biggest reasons I built it this way.
A lot of AI resume tools can make something sound impressive, but then you’re left wondering.
So the goal with NextOrbit is to help with the hard parts, like spotting keyword gaps and tailoring the wording, while still keeping the output tied to what you actually did.
Really glad the scoring breakdown felt specific too. Vague feedback like “add more keywords” isn’t very useful. I wanted it to point out where the gaps actually are, so you can make a better decision instead of just guessing.
ATS systems can be very keyword-specific, and I have a much better understanding now of where that can quietly hold strong candidates back. Some level of keyword matching is unavoidable in modern hiring pipelines, but I think job seekers should at least be able to see how their resume is being interpreted, where the gaps are, and how to respond without turning their resume into something fake.
Thank you for the support!