Reading an IT resume often feels like trying to decode a foreign-language document. Java, Node.js, Kubernetes, CI/CD, REST, GraphQL – the list of technical terms grows with every technology generation. How do you separate substance from surface?
The good news: some meaningful patterns are recognisable even without technical knowledge.
Warning Signs Anyone Can Spot
Skill lists that read like a glossary. A CV listing forty technologies without any indication of where the candidate has real depth is suspicious. It's humanly impossible to be equally strong in everything. Someone who doesn't prioritise is either inflating their profile or lacks a clear focus – either warrants a conversation.
Lack of continuity and frequent job changes without visible growth. Two or three positions over ten years is normal if they show development. Six roles in five years, always at the same level, without any apparent skill progression? That deserves an honest discussion.
Vague descriptions of personal responsibility. "Contributed to the development of a system" – for a team of how many? In what capacity? Did the candidate work independently or as one of many in a large team with no individual technical ownership? Strong candidates describe what they specifically did, not just where they worked.
No discernible growth arc. A CV that shows the same technical level over ten years – no new technologies, no growing responsibilities – may indicate someone who has stopped developing. In a field that changes as rapidly as software development, that's worth noting.
Unexplained gaps. Everyone knows career breaks, illness, or parental leave. What stands out are gaps that a candidate sidesteps in conversation without a plausible explanation.
What You Cannot Reliably Judge
Whether someone is genuinely proficient in Python or simply capable of adapting existing scripts – you can't determine that from a CV. Whether the listed technologies align with the depth your role requires – also unclear.
That's not a flaw in your screening process. It's a structural feature of technical competence: you can't see it on paper. It shows up in practice.
The Sensible Conclusion
Use CV screening for what it can do well: rough plausibility, structural warning signs, first-impression cultural fit. For technical depth, you need someone who knows the tools and methods the candidate lists – and who can probe what's actually behind them.
An external expert who conducts a focused technical conversation or reviews a practical assignment closes the gap that CV screening leaves open.
Summary
- Endless skill lists with no clear focus are suspicious
- Vague language around personal responsibility deserves follow-up
- Flat career progression in long experience is worth noting
- Technical depth assessment requires a subject-matter perspective