Rekdan
Try Rekdan

Job search prompt · Built for Apollo

Read a job rejection for real signal

Separates the parts of a rejection that tell you something from the parts that are standard wording, and says what to change next.

The prompt

Help me get whatever is actually useful out of this rejection.

The message:
[PASTE IT IN FULL]

The role and stage I reached: [E.G. REJECTED AFTER SECOND INTERVIEW]
What I thought went well: [DETAIL]
What I thought went badly: [DETAIL]
How many similar rejections I have had recently: [NUMBER, AND WHETHER THEY LOOK ALIKE]

Produce four sections.

1. WHAT IS BOILERPLATE — quote the parts that appear in essentially every rejection. Say so plainly, so I stop reading meaning into them.

2. WHAT IS ACTUALLY SPECIFIC — anything written for me rather than pasted. Even one clause. Say what it most likely means and how confident that reading is.

3. WHAT THE STAGE ITSELF TELLS ME — being cut at a screen, after a task, or at final stage each mean something different about where the problem is. This is usually more informative than the wording.

4. WHAT TO CHANGE, AND WHAT NOT TO — given the pattern I described. If several rejections look alike, say what they have in common. If this looks like one ordinary rejection rather than a pattern, say that and tell me to change nothing.

Do not console me and do not pad this. If there is no usable signal here, the honest answer is "this tells you nothing" and I would rather have it.
Try in Rekdan

Replace the outlined parts before running

  • [PASTE IT IN FULL]
  • [E.G. REJECTED AFTER SECOND INTERVIEW]
  • [DETAIL]
  • [NUMBER, AND WHETHER THEY LOOK ALIKE]

When to use this

Rejections are read very closely and almost entirely wrongly. The reader goes over a message that was assembled from a template looking for the sentence that explains it, and finds one — usually "we had a number of strong candidates", which is in every rejection ever sent and means nothing at all. Meanwhile the genuinely informative thing, which is how far you got, gets no attention because it is not made of words.

This prompt splits the message into what is pasted and what was typed, and says plainly when the answer is that there is nothing here. That last part matters: the most common outcome of reading a rejection carefully is discovering it contains no information, and being told so is what stops a week of rewriting a CV that was never the problem.

Section three is where the real signal usually is. Cut at the screen points at the CV or the salary expectation; cut after a task points at the work; cut at final stage often points at something that was not about you. Those need completely different responses, and the message itself rarely says which.

How to use it

  1. Say how many similar rejections you have had

    One rejection is noise. Five that all end at the same stage is a pattern with a cause, and section four can only find it if it knows.

  2. Write down what you thought went badly first

    It gets compared against the message and the stage. Sometimes it lines up, and sometimes you discover you have been fixing something that was never the issue.

  3. Accept 'this tells you nothing' when you get it

    It is the correct answer more often than not. Running the prompt again with more context to extract a more satisfying reading is how you end up acting on a sentence from a template.

Variations

Ask for feedback in a way that sometimes works

Write a short message asking for feedback that has a chance of being answered.

The rejection I received: [PASTE]
Stage I reached: [DETAIL]
Who I am writing to: [RECRUITER, HIRING MANAGER — AND WHETHER WE SPOKE DIRECTLY]
What I genuinely want to know: [BE SPECIFIC]

Produce:
1. THE MESSAGE — under 80 words, one narrow question rather than a request for general feedback, easy to answer in a single line.
2. WHY MOST FEEDBACK REQUESTS GO UNANSWERED, and which of those reasons applies here.
3. WHETHER THIS ONE IS WORTH SENDING AT ALL — say no if the honest answer is no.
4. WHAT NOT TO DO — anything that would read as arguing with the decision.
Try this variation

Find the pattern across several rejections

I keep getting rejected and I cannot see why. Look at the pattern.

The roles I applied for: [LIST, WITH TITLES]
Where each one ended: [NO REPLY / SCREEN / INTERVIEW / TASK / FINAL]
My CV: [PASTE]
What I say when asked about my experience: [SUMMARISE YOUR USUAL ANSWER]
Salary I am asking for, if it came up: [DETAIL]

Produce:
1. WHERE THE APPLICATIONS DIE MOST OFTEN, and what that stage failing usually means.
2. THE MOST LIKELY CAUSES, ranked, given everything above — including the ones that are not about me, like the level or the market.
3. WHAT TO TEST FIRST — one change, and how I would know within two weeks whether it worked.
4. WHAT IS PROBABLY FINE and not worth more effort.

Do not tell me it is a tough market and leave it there.
Try this variation

Where it falls short

  • Most rejections genuinely contain no informationLegal caution means employers say as little as possible on purpose. Reading a template closely enough will always produce an interpretation; that does not make it real.
  • When the reason was never about youInternal candidates, frozen budgets, a role rewritten after it was posted. No analysis of the wording can distinguish these from a decision about you, and assuming it was about you is the default error.
  • After a long run of rejectionsThis is a tool for reading a message, not for judging your worth. If the pattern analysis keeps pointing at things you cannot change, that is a signal about which roles to target, not about you.

Related prompts