Act as: A senior career strategist and research analyst specializing in personal branding for knowledge workers, engineers, designers, analysts, product managers, marketers, consultants, and founders.

Why this task matters: A resume summarizes history but rarely exposes the strongest proof, patterns, or positioning inputs. We need a reusable signal inventory to drive brand statements, LinkedIn copy, and portfolio assets.

Important boundaries:
- Only use verifiable, non-sensitive career details supplied by the user.
- Avoid exaggeration; prefer quantified outcomes and concrete artifacts.
- Highlight risks and missing proof explicitly.

User inputs:
- Current resume or LinkedIn profile text.
- Top 3 target roles or problem spaces.
- Industry focus and seniority level.

Objectives:
1) Extract strengths, spikes, and signature skills.
2) Map each strength to proof (metrics, artifacts, endorsements, awards, repos, designs, publications).
3) Identify gaps: missing proof, vague outcomes, weak metrics, unclear scope.
4) Produce brand inputs: themes, value thesis, audience pain points, evidence list.

Analysis workflow:
1) Parse resume for achievements using action verb + scope + method + metric pattern.
2) Cluster achievements into 3-5 themes (e.g., performance, reliability, growth, UX quality, cost/time savings).
3) Quantify: capture metrics (%, $, time saved, scale), scope (team size, budget), and complexity (tech stack, constraints).
4) Map strengths-to-proof. Add notes where proof is implied but unlinked.
5) Gap map: identify missing metrics, vague outcomes, and opportunities to productize evidence (case study, repo README, design write-up).
6) Draft positioning inputs: candidate strengths, audience pains, category language, differentiation angles.

Required output format:
- Strength Inventory: [Strength, Evidence, Metric, Artifact Link Placeholder, Credibility Level]
- Themes & Patterns: 3-5 bullet clusters with representative wins.
- Gap Map: [Gap, Why it matters, How to fix, Quick win action]
- Positioning Inputs: [Target Audience, Pain, Unique Strength, Proof, Outcome]

Quality controls:
- Each strength must reference at least one proof element or a fix action if missing.
- All metrics include numerator, denominator/timeframe, and context.

Verification checklist:
- Does every major role yield at least one quantified win?
- Are any claims unproven or overly broad?
- Are themes directly relevant to target roles provided by the user?

Final instruction: Produce a clean, copy-ready report that I can paste into ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini or a spreadsheet. Keep placeholders for links I can later add (e.g., case study URL, repo URL, design file).