AIBUDI: an AI job coach on the jobseeker’s side

Material by Robbert Zijlstra · editorial development based on the supplied AIBUDI description. Product functions, free access and performance are presented as beta developers’ claims.

Five minutes sounds like a small request. For someone repeatedly revising a CV, adapting a cover letter and waiting for a reply, even modest practical help can matter. AIBUDI is an AI job coach being developed in beta from that perspective. Robbert Zijlstra presents it as a project informed by jobseekers’ experiences, rather than simply another tool for automatically rewriting documents.

In the supplied material, he asks people to try the system briefly and offer honest feedback. Testers do not need to be looking for a job or upload their own CV: the project describes practice documents and vacancies for that purpose. The invitation is to assess whether the support works in practice, including for people unfamiliar with the technical language of AI.

From applying to understanding your experience

Applying for a role involves several different tasks. Candidates must understand the vacancy, recognise relevant experience, explain it clearly, prepare documents and discuss it convincingly. A general-purpose writing assistant may help with an individual task, but users still have to organise the overall process. AIBUDI aims to bring those stages into a single guided workflow.

According to the project’s description, the starting point is a comparison between a CV and a specific vacancy. A personal coach then asks questions, helps clarify experience and suggests next steps. The principle is to establish what the candidate actually knows before choosing how to present it. The aim should be a clearer account of a real career, rather than an invented improvement to that career.

Which tasks is AIBUDI designed to support?

Comparing a CV with a vacancy

Users add a job advertisement and the system compares it with their CV. The stated purpose is to identify areas of alignment and information that needs clarification. This can provide a structure for reading a lengthy advertisement: distinguishing central requirements from additional preferences and checking whether relevant experience is visible in the document.

A matching result should be treated as a prompt for further work, rather than a prediction of an employer’s decision. Candidates do not know every hiring criterion, the other applications or an organisation’s internal priorities. Even a useful assessment of a document cannot turn that uncertainty into a guaranteed likelihood of employment.

Questions that uncover omitted experience

A job title rarely describes every skill a person has developed. Coordinating a small team, handling customer enquiries, volunteering or solving operational problems may be summarised too vaguely. The supplied material describes AIBUDI asking follow-up questions to identify experience that already exists but has not been explained sufficiently clearly.

For example, “helped organise events” does not explain the scope of someone’s responsibilities. Useful questions might concern scheduling, partner communication or tasks completed independently. The answers still need to come from the candidate. A tool can organise those facts, while the user checks that the resulting wording remains accurate.

A CV and cover letter for one application

The developers describe support for producing an improved CV and a cover letter linked to the selected vacancy. Both documents should tell a consistent story. A letter can explain motivation and relevance instead of repeating the entire CV. Before submitting anything, candidates should independently check names, dates, facts and tone.

There is an important distinction between finding precise wording and changing someone’s experience. Describing an activity more clearly may help. Adding a qualification, unfamiliar software or responsibilities the person never had is not an improvement. AIBUDI’s supplied material stresses that additions should concern information that genuinely belongs to the user.

Practising an interview

Another described function is spoken interview practice with individual feedback. A simulated conversation may help people structure answers, notice unclear explanations and rehearse discussing decisions. Useful practice should encourage specific examples rather than the memorisation of polished generic responses.

A simulation remains a rehearsal. A real interview depends on people, the industry and the organisation, so it will not reproduce AI-generated questions exactly. The more valuable outcome may be a better understanding of one’s own experience and the ability to explain it when the conversation takes an unexpected direction.

Why a beta needs honest feedback

Robbert Zijlstra’s appeal is not a request for compliments alone. He describes a project shaped by jobseekers’ experiences that still needs improvement. Beta status means functions and the user experience may change. A report about an unclear question, an inaccurate suggestion or a usability problem can be as valuable as an account of something that genuinely helped.

The most useful feedback usually concerns a specific situation. Instead of saying only that something does not work, a tester can describe the action taken, the expected outcome and what appeared. When evaluating CV suggestions, it helps to explain whether the system understood the vacancy and the candidate’s experience. This requires careful attention, rather than specialist AI expertise.

A five-minute test without your own CV

The project’s material describes a sample CV and vacancy that people can use for practice. This offers a starting point for anyone who wants to explore the process without using personal career information. Visitors should first check the current instructions and availability of practice files, then work through one coherent example.

A test can begin with the comparison, followed by reading its explanation and answering a few coaching questions. The next step is to check whether the proposed description is more concrete while remaining faithful to the sample. Finally, note one helpful element, one unclear point and one suggested improvement. That can already provide the team with a useful observation.

Free access and claims in context

In the supplied material, the developers say AIBUDI is free for jobseekers and is intended to remain so. The author presents this as the project’s operating principle rather than a temporary promotion. Users should nevertheless check the current terms and scope of beta functions, particularly if some time has passed since this article was published.

The communication also describes an initial result in around 90 seconds and a matching approach informed by research into approximately 500,000 vacancies. These are developer-provided parameters and methodological claims. This article does not present them as independently tested editorial findings or evidence of improved hiring outcomes.

The same distinction applies to provider claims about GDPR and the EU AI Act. The author’s material emphasises user control and responsible use of AI. TRUTH has not conducted a legal or technical audit as part of this article. Current data-processing information and service terms should be checked directly with the provider.

Technology on the jobseeker’s side

AIBUDI’s most interesting proposition is its focus on helping candidates recognise and communicate their abilities. The value of such support extends beyond producing more elegant prose. What matters is whether people understand suggestions, can verify them and retain control over the application they ultimately send.

Robbert Zijlstra’s invitation is straightforward: try the tool and explain honestly what works and what needs improvement. Interested readers can visit AIBUDI, review the current beta arrangements and begin with practice materials. The reference point should remain the people preparing another application and trying to make their genuine experience easier to see.