Writing a standout CV in 2026: writing for the software as much as the recruiter

◆Your CV's first reader isn't human

You've probably spent real time on a good-looking CV: two columns, a photo, boxed sections, a neat skills bar. I get the impulse, but it's worth being honest about this: before a human ever sees it, software usually reads it first. These tools, the ATS (Applicant Tracking Systems), break your document down to pull out the text. Faced with a rich layout, they scramble the word order, skip whole sections, or simply ignore anything stored inside an image.

What strikes me is how silent this failure is. Your most relevant experience can become invisible because it sat in a right-hand column, or because your job title was tucked inside a table. The recruiter never learns you were filtered out: your application just doesn't surface, and you put the silence down to something else. It's avoidable, and that's almost reassuring: a CV the machine can read isn't an ugly CV, it's a well-structured one.

• A single column, top to bottom, so the reading order stays intact.
• No photo, no logo, no text inside an image: the machine only reads selectable text.
• No tables or text boxes to place your info. Plain text, clear headings.
• A .docx file, or a PDF generated from text (not a scan, not an exported image).
• Standard section titles: Experience, Education, Skills. Creative headings, the ATS won't recognise.

◆Two very different readers, one document

Your CV has to pass two exams that have almost nothing in common. The first is the software filter: it hunts for specific keywords pulled from the job ad. If the listing asks for "project management" and you wrote "running site operations", the match can fail even though you do exactly that work. The second exam is the human, and it's just as quick: eye-tracking studies, notably from Ladders in the US, show that a recruiter scans a CV in a few seconds before deciding whether to keep reading.

What works better, in my view, is not choosing between the two. You speak the language of the ad for the machine, and you stay instantly clear and well-prioritised for the human. In practice that means putting your strongest information at the top, reusing the exact words of the target role, and making every line scannable at a glance. A CV that pleases both reuses the ad's vocabulary without ever sacrificing readability. It isn't a compromise, it's just discipline.

◆Letting the market dictate your keywords

Here's the method I find most rewarding for a targeted CV, and it'll only cost you twenty minutes or so. The starting idea is simple: instead of guessing which words to use, you let the market tell you. You gather a batch of ads for YOUR role, surface the vocabulary that comes up most, and rewrite your CV around those terms. You move from a generic CV, written from your own head, to one calibrated on what recruiters actually ask for.

• Gather 20 to 25 ads for the role you're targeting (same title, same level) into a single text document.
• Paste it all into an AI and ask for the 10 most frequent skills and keywords, ranked by occurrence.
• Note those 10 terms: they're your priorities. They should appear naturally, not as an artificial list pasted at the bottom.
• Rewrite your summary, weaving the 3 or 4 strongest terms into the first two lines.
• Go through each experience and reframe your work with that vocabulary, wherever it's honest and true for you.
• Reread: if an important keyword is still missing, find the real experience that justifies it and add it in.

◆Describing results, not responsibilities

Most CVs describe responsibilities: "in charge of", "responsible for". It's correct, but it proves nothing. The CVs that leave a trace describe results. The formula I recommend comes down to three parts: an action verb, what you did, and a number. The number doesn't need to be spectacular, it needs to be concrete. That's what turns a vague claim into something verifiable.

A concrete example. Before: "Responsible for client relationships." After: "Managed a portfolio of 40 B2B clients with a 92% renewal rate over 18 months." Another case, before: "Helped improve processes." After: "Designed a new approval process that cut turnaround from 5 days to 2." Most often, it's that quantified version that holds the recruiter's attention. And if you don't have an exact figure, give an honest ballpark, "around a dozen", "more than half of": the goal is to show impact, never to inflate.

◆One page or two? The real question is elsewhere

The "one page only" rule isn't a universal law, whatever people keep repeating. Early in your career, one page is plenty and forces you to be concise, which is rather healthy. With ten or more years of experience, two pages are perfectly acceptable, as long as the second adds value rather than filler. The real trade-off, honestly, isn't page count: it's the balance between keyword density, for the machine, and readability, for the human.

What I'd suggest is aiming for a CV where every line earns its place. If an old or off-topic experience helps neither the machine nor the human, cut it, or shrink it to a single line. A shorter, denser CV beats a long, diluted one: a recruiter scanning in a few seconds never rewards volume, they reward clarity. It's a discipline more than a length rule.

◆The last pass before you send

Before you hit send, give yourself one final read. Three mistakes come up again and again and genuinely cost interviews: the same CV fired off everywhere with no tailoring, missing keywords that were sitting right there in the ad, and a layout the ATS can't read. All three are easy to fix once you have them in mind, and that's exactly what this final pass is for.

• The one-size-fits-all CV sent to 30 ads: tailor at least your summary and 3-4 bullets for each listing.
• Missing keywords: the ad says "SQL" and "project management", your CV doesn't contain them. Add them back honestly.
• The layout trap: columns, photo, tables. Switch to a single column and plain text.
• Your checklist: single column, no photo or table, summary tuned to the ad, 10 keywords present, quantified bullets, .docx or text PDF file, and zero typos (read it aloud, it's the most effective check).