A cover letter that argues from evidence you actually have

How it works

1. 1

   It reads the resume you already built

   No second questionnaire about your career. The letter is drawn from the roles, bullets and numbers already in your resume, which is the only material it is allowed to argue from.

2. 2

   You paste the real posting

   It reads what the job actually asks for and picks the two or three things in your history that answer it, rather than restating your resume in paragraph form, which is the most common way a cover letter wastes its one page.

3. 3

   You approve every fact

   It proposes wording; you own the facts. Where a claim needs a number to land, it asks you for the number instead of inventing one, and it will not manufacture an employer, a date, a degree or a metric.

Why “it will not invent things” is the whole feature

A fabricated cover letter is not a small problem. It is a claim about your history that you did not make and cannot defend, sitting in front of someone who is about to interview you on exactly that. The failure shows up in the room, weeks later, when you are asked to talk about a project that never happened.

So the constraint is structural rather than a warning in the copy: the generator is given your resume and the posting as its only material. When it needs something it has not been given, it stops and asks. A letter that says less and is entirely true is worth more than one that says more and cannot be defended.

Is it worth writing a cover letter at all?

Often, no, and we would rather say so than sell you a generator on a false premise. A letter is worth the time when it can carry something the resume structurally cannot: a career change the titles do not explain, a gap worth naming, or a specific reason this employer rather than the twenty others. When you have none of those, your hour is better spent aiming the resume.

The full argument, including how to tell the two cases apart, is in tailoring one application, end to end.

What it costs

One cover letter on the free account, with no card. It does not refill. A plan removes the counting rather than unlocking a better generator, there is only one, and the free account uses the same one.

How to tell it was written by a machine, and how this avoids it

The tells are consistent enough to list. An opening that announces itself (“I am writing to express my keen interest in the position of…”) spends the most valuable sentence on the page saying nothing. A middle paragraph that restates the resume in longer words gives a reader who has already seen the resume no reason to keep going. Adjectives with no evidence behind them (passionate, dynamic, results-driven) are unfalsifiable, so they carry no information.

The structural cause is the same in each case: a generator with no material has to produce volume from nothing, and confident filler is what that looks like. Given your actual bullets and an actual posting, there is something specific to say, so it says that instead. The letter is also fully editable, and it should be read before it is sent, not because it is likely to be wrong, but because it is going out under your name.

What a good one contains

Three things, in about 250 words. Why this employer specifically, in a way that could not be pasted into an application to a competitor. The two or three pieces of your history that most directly answer what the posting asks for, with the numbers attached. And anything the resume structurally cannot explain: a change of field, a gap, a relocation, a title that undersells what you did.

Everything else is optional and most of it is padding. If you find you have none of the three, that is the signal that this particular application does not need a letter, and the hour is better spent on the resume itself.