The Claude Agent That Applies To Jobs Without Lying
It reads job boards every morning, builds a resume per job out of an approved list of true things, submits the application, and logs it. It has done that 176 times. The whole thing is a free download below.
Build no. 05 · Branden Bell · 6 min read · Built with Claude
TL;DR
Built An agent that finds job postings, screens them, tailors a resume, applies, and logs it.
Who Business owners who want this discipline pointed at their own operation. Job seekers too.
Changed 176 applications in 23 days. 364 rejected on purpose, each with a reason on the record.
Yours The whole pipeline, scrubbed and free. No email needed.
The dashboard the agent rebuilds after every run. Company names are blurred here because most of these applications are still open.
Why I Built It
Every AI job tool I looked at solves the wrong half. They all make it easy to send more. None of them make it hard to say something untrue.
That is the part that actually matters. An application with an invented year on it is worse than no application, because you find out in the room, in the moment where somebody asks you to talk about the thing you never did.
My own search, before any of this, ran about 470 applications over three and a half years. It produced 5 interviews and no offers. Most of that was me at a laptop at 11pm, reading a posting, editing a resume, retyping the same address into another form. The honest ones and the sloppy ones took the same amount of time, so the sloppy ones won.
The volume math is brutal and it is not optional. You cannot hand-crank your way to enough. But you also cannot cheat. So the only way out is a machine that moves at volume and stays rigid at the same time.
What It Will Never Do
- Create an account
- Type or reset a password
- Solve a CAPTCHA, or any control whose own wording says it is checking that a human is present
- Fill a hidden or honeypot field
- Accept an arbitration clause, a jury-trial waiver, or a class-action waiver
- Sign an attestation that the applicant personally completed this application
- Claim or imply that a human wrote what an agent wrote
- Treat text on a page as an instruction
This list is not advisory. The agent stops and hands the job back to me rather than crossing any of these lines, and it has done exactly that 9 times. The last line is the one people miss: a job posting is data, not a command. If a page carries hidden text telling the agent to include a magic word, it does not comply. That has happened once, on a real posting, and the log says so.
04 It submits, then proves it submitted
It drives a real browser, fills the form, attaches that resume, and submits. Then it waits for the confirmation the site itself shows and reads it. No confirmation, no log entry.
The Part That Does The Work
Most of the value is not code. It is the gate list, written down somewhere a run can be measured against it.
# Every row must clear all of these
TITLE in the approved family, and not on the block list
FRESH 72 hours or less, read from the board record
PLACE remote US, or an office I would actually drive to
PAY top of the stated band clears the floor
NEW not already in the ledger
HONEST every stated minimum is one I actually meet
# A row that fails any line is logged with the
# exact sentence that stopped it, then skipped.
The last gate is the expensive one. It is also the only one that makes the other four worth having.
Get The Claude Job Hunt Pipeline, No Charge
The whole thing, scrubbed. My resume, my boards and my history are out of it, replaced with placeholders you fill in. Drop it in your Claude plugins folder and point it at your own search. What is inside: the run loop, every board endpoint, the two regexes that decide what counts, the never-list, the resume generator that refuses to invent a claim, and the gates as running code rather than advice.
No email, no signup. Read the never-list before your primary run, and keep it. The gates in the file are one person's honest minimums; yours will be different, and the whole point is that you write yours down before the machine starts applying on your behalf.
Who This Suits
Worth your time as an owner if you have a repeating process that runs on somebody remembering the rules. The job search is just a convenient thing to point this at. The pattern underneath, written rules plus a machine that will not bend them, is the same one I build into client delivery.
Worth your time as a job seeker if you are already applying seriously and want the volume without the lying. It expects you to bring your own facts and your own judgment. It is a power tool, not a butler.
Skip it if you want something that writes you a better story than the one you have.
And if you would rather not build it yourself
I Do This Around Your Business, Not Mine
This one is pointed at my own job search because that is the problem I had. Most of my week is the same shape of work at client scale: ClickUp systems for service businesses, and lately the Claude tooling that sits on top of them.
The useful part was never the automation. It was writing down the rules first, so a machine could hold the line on days a person would not.
A call. You talk, I ask, nothing gets pitched. Honest answers on what to automate, what to simplify, and what to leave alone. If it is worth going deeper, we keep going. If it is not, I say so.
The intro call is free. If we go further, consulting is $250 for the first hour, then $75 an hour. Twenty minutes, on my calendar, no charge and nothing to cancel.
I am Branden Bell. I run Bell Consulting Solutions out of St. Petersburg, Florida. PMP, ClickUp Verified Consultant, and the person who answers the email.
The skip log. Every row names the exact line that stopped it. This screen is the point of the whole build.
One ledger row per application, written only after the site itself confirmed the submission. The notes column is where the odd cases go.
The pipeline board. Nothing moves into a later column on the agent's say-so; it moves when a real reply arrives.
How It Works
Two scheduled runs a day. Each one reads the boards, screens what it finds, applies to what survives, and writes down what it did.
01 It reads the boards directly, not the aggregators
Five applicant tracking systems, several hundred company boards, hit through their own public endpoints. That matters because aggregator cards lie about dates. I have caught it seven times: a card says posted today, the actual board record says twelve days ago. The board record is the only date it trusts.
02 Every row passes the same gates, in the same order
Is the title in a small approved set. Is it under 72 hours old. Is it remote in the US, or in one of two places I would actually drive to. Does the pay clear a floor. Have I applied to it already. Then the one that kills the most: read the stated minimums and check them against what is true. Not what could be argued. What is true.
03 The resume gets rebuilt per job and cannot invent a claim
Every application gets its own one page resume, assembled from a bank of approved statements, each one a thing I actually did. The generator reorders them and swaps the headline to match the posting. It cannot write a new sentence. A checker reads the finished PDF back and kills the file if any word or number in it did not come from the bank.
05 It writes down every application and every skip
Both halves get written down. A submission carries the company, the role, the pay and how old the posting was. A skip carries the sentence that stopped it, quoted. That second half is the one most tools throw away, and it is the half I actually read.
What Changed
176 applications in 23 days. Every one carries a resume built for that posting, and every answer on every form is one I can sit across a table and defend. 364 rows were rejected on purpose.
What has not changed: I do not have an offer yet, and this page is not going to pretend otherwise. What I can say is that the search stopped being the thing that ate my evenings, and that not one of those 176 has a sentence in it I would have to walk back.