calhire
Free tool

Job description checker

Paste an advert and see the wording that quietly narrows who applies, with the reason attached to each finding rather than a score.

A job description checker scans an advert for wording associated with a narrower applicant pool: age proxies such as “digital native”, masculine-coded wording, gendered job titles, native-speaker requirements, hard degree and years-of-experience filters, and culture-fit language. This one runs in your browser and explains why each phrase matters rather than returning a score.

The text stays in your browser. Nothing is uploaded, stored or logged.

0 words

Results appear here as you type. 10 patterns are checked.

What this cannot tell you

It reads language, not requirements. An advert can pass every check here and still exclude most capable applicants, because the eight bullet points under “Requirements” were copied from the last posting and nobody asked whether any of them were necessary. That is the larger question, and no text tool reaches it.

It also says nothing about what happens after someone applies. Wording affects who starts an application. Screening, interviewing and offering decide who gets the job, and that is where selection-rate measurement belongs.

Treat a clean result as one thing off the list rather than as a verdict. The single most useful edit to most job adverts is still cutting the requirements list in half.

Questions about job description wording

Is my job description uploaded anywhere?
No. The check runs entirely in your browser and there is no endpoint to send text to. People paste unpublished requisitions into tools like this, so anything else would be a poor way to build it.
What does the checker actually look for?
Ten patterns, grouped by what they do to an applicant pool: masculine-coded wording, gendered job nouns, age proxies, heavy years-of-experience requirements, hard degree requirements, culture-fit language, boilerplate physical requirements, intensity signalling, empty jargon and native-speaker requirements.
Some of these are legitimate requirements for our role.
Several are, and the tool says so. A genuine physical requirement or a real licence is a real requirement. What the checker flags is the phrase and what the research associates with it; the judgement about whether it applies to your role stays with you.
Does changing the wording actually change who applies?
For gendered wording, the research on agentic and communal language in adverts finds a measurable effect on how much women want to apply, working mainly through a reduced sense of belonging. For the others the mechanism is more direct: a hard requirement excludes the people who do not meet it, whether or not it predicts performance.
Will a clean result make my hiring fair?
No, and it is worth being blunt about that. This is a lint pass over language. It cannot tell you whether the requirements themselves are necessary, which is the larger question, or what happens to candidates once they apply.

Read further

Writing a job description around skills, and what the requirements list actually does.

Hiring Playbook7 min read

How to write a skills-based job description

Most job descriptions are a wish-list of proxies. How to write one around measurable skills, plus the language patterns that quietly shrink your applicant pool.

Read
Hiring Playbook7 min read

Dropping the degree requirement: what has to replace it

Removing a degree requirement without replacing the signal makes hiring more subjective, not less. What the degree was doing, and what to measure instead.

Read
Fairness9 min read

The biases that actually change hiring outcomes

Awareness training does not fix bias. A guide to the biases that measurably move hiring decisions, and the process change that neutralises each one.

Read

Browse all topics on the blog