Job Description Writer

Most job descriptions fail in a predictable way. They're a long requirements list, a vague "about us" mission paragraph at the top, no salary, and language pulled half from HR templates and half from LinkedIn lorem ipsum ("rockstar," "ninja," "passionate about disruption"). The result: women apply at 100% requirement match and men at around 60% — so an inflated list doesn't raise the bar, it shrinks and skews the pool. The skill rewrites for the opposite outcome.

The structure is fixed and deliberate. Hook first — two or three sentences about what makes the role interesting for the candidate, not "we are looking for." Then what they'll do (5–7 outcome-focused bullets — "launch the demand gen programme that doubles MQLs" beats "manage marketing campaigns"). Then what they'll bring (4–6 capabilities, not credentials — "can build dashboards in Tableau" beats "3+ years Tableau experience"). Nice-to-haves are clearly labelled and limited to two or three. Then a specific compensation section, then a short "about us" at the bottom, then a genuine equal opportunity statement with an adjustments email.

The audit happens before the rewrite. Gendered language flagged and replaced — "aggressive" becomes "ambitious," "dominant" becomes "leading," and "rockstar/ninja/guru" gets cut entirely because they signal nothing. Every requirement is challenged: "10+ years" interrogated against whether 7 would do, degree requirements interrogated against whether the role actually needs the degree's knowledge, tool experience interrogated against whether two weeks of ramp would close the gap. Most "musts" turn out to be preferences. The list shrinks. The pool grows.

Salary transparency is non-negotiable in the output. Postings with a range attract meaningfully more applicants, get filtered out of fewer job boards, and stop wasting both sides' time on misaligned ranges. "Competitive" means nothing — the skill replaces it with a specific band and, where useful, where in the band the role is likely to land.

The 60% rule runs at the end. Would someone who matches 60% of the requirements feel encouraged to apply? If not, the requirements get trimmed again. The skill is opinionated about this — fewer, sharper requirements attract better pools, and the evidence on this is consistent enough that it's treated as a hard rule, not a preference.