Don't take our word for it. Send us the job description.

It gets read the way high performers with options read it, someone with three live conversations and a job they like. Line by line: where it asks them to prove themselves before it offers them anything, what it's buying versus what it's selling, and the moment they close the tab.

The rebuild is the next step. Same role, same bar, rebuilt as a case instead of a checklist: the actual problem, the real constraints, why the seat is open, what success looks like, the band. The version someone with options keeps reading.

There's a second thing we look for. When the posting is a snapshot of requirements - a static description of a dynamic job - it is inaccurate the day it goes up, and more inaccurate every week after. That gap sorts the readers before anyone applies. The willing don't price it, because they're buying an exit and an exit is worth the same whatever the job becomes. High performers with options are the only readers for whom the gap is expensive, because trajectory is the entire question they're asking. They won't bet on it and they can't check it, so they close the tab.

High performers with options don't ask could I do this job. They're asking is this career progress, and normally they can't answer it until week four, when they finally learn who they'd report to, what they could decide alone, and where the seat leads. That's also the week a counter-offer lands.

The teardown comes back in 24 hours, no fee. It shows what the posting selects for, and what changes need to be made.

Send us your JD

If the teardown doesn't change how you see your own role, ignore everything else on this page.