The six things a cover letter review reads for

These are the checks behind the margin notes, and each exists because it catches a specific way letters fail, not because it is a style preference. If you would rather review by hand, this section is the full method.

The opener. The first paragraph answers one question in the reader's head: was this written for me, or for everyone? "I am writing to apply for the position" fails it, because it restates what the application already says. An opener survives when it contains something specific: the company's actual name plus your strongest fact, in the first two sentences.

The evidence. Every letter has a strongest sentence, usually the one with a number in it, and in most drafts it is buried in the third paragraph. The check finds it and tells you to promote it. A letter with no checkable fact at all has a bigger problem than placement, and the check says that plainly too.

Filler. "Team player", "passionate", "proven track record": every applicant claims them, so they carry no information, and each one occupies space a fact could use. The check quotes yours verbatim so you can cut them without hunting.

Length and shape. The working band is 250 to 400 words in three to five paragraphs. Under it, you have not made one concrete case; over it, your best material gets skimmed past. A single unbroken block fails regardless of word count, because the eye has nowhere to rest.

The close. Most letters end with "thank you for your time and consideration" and nothing else, which is polite and passive. A skimming reader jumps from the opener straight to the close, so the final sentence should ask for something specific: a conversation, an interview, fifteen minutes.

The match. When you paste the posting, the check names the requirements your letter answers and the big ones it never mentions. It will not tell you to claim experience you do not have; a real gap is handled by addressing it honestly or leaving it alone, never by inventing.

A real check, note by note

Below is a typical short letter and the checker's actual notes on it, unedited. Hover or tap any note and it lights up the exact lines it is talking about. This letter is the common case: one real piece of evidence wrapped in template language.

Note what the checker did not do: it did not rewrite the letter, and it did not manufacture ten problems to look thorough. Dana's letter has one real asset and three mechanical failures, and the notes say exactly that. Also missing on purpose: a length note beyond the facts (118 words is thin, and the note says where the room is) and any advice to claim experience the letter does not contain.