Senior Technical Writer – (RFP, Proposal Development, Government Contracting)
` for section headings (e.g., About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)
- Use `- ` for lists of duties/requirements/benefits
- Use `
` for prose
- Do NOT repeat job title as heading (page already shows it)
- Do NOT put Job ID / requisition numbers as headings - fold minor metadata into short `
` or drop it
- Preserve ALL substantive information; do NOT invent or summarize away detail
- Remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, and application instructions
- IMPORTANT: include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it — never emit a heading followed by filler/placeholder text (e.g. "commensurate with experience", "not specified", "N/A", "varies", "TBD") and never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless the posting actually states them
- Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones
- Output ONLY the HTML fragment — no `/`, no markdown code fences
2. **Analyze the Job Posting Text:**
Let me parse the provided text. It's a job posting for "Senior Technical Writer". I need to extract relevant sections and structure them.
Text structure:
- Position Summary (prose)
- Key Responsibilities (list of bullet points)
- Required Qualifications (looks like a list, but formatted as paragraphs with line breaks)
- Preferred Qualifications (similar)
- Key Competencies (looks like a list)
- Salary: $120,000 - $130,000
- Physical Demands (prose with some list-like items)
- Equal Opportunity / MicroHealth statement (boilerplate - must remove)
- Powered by JazzHR 9ColGYFxHp (boilerplate - must remove)
I need to identify which sections have real, specific content, and which are boilerplate to remove.
Let's break down by potential headings the user allowed: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule.
- "About the role": The "Position Summary" could be this. It has specific content.
- "Responsibilities": "Key Responsibilities" section - has specific bullet points.
- "Requirements": Might overlap with "Required Qualifications". The user said "Requirements" and "Qualifications" as possible headings. I'll need to decide. Looking at the rules: use `
` for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). I can use some of these. I should not create sections without content. "Requirements" might be covered by "Required Qualifications". I'll likely use "Required Qualifications" as a section, or merge into "Qualifications". The user listed both "Requirements" and "Qualifications" as examples. I'll pick one or structure carefully. Probably best to use "Required Qualifications" as the heading, or "Qualifications". But the rule says: include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it. The posting has "Required Qualifications" and "Preferred Qualifications". I'll likely create a "Qualifications" section that includes both required and preferred, or separate them. But I need to be careful not to create thin sections. The rule: "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." So maybe combine qualifications into one section, or have "Required Qualifications" and "Preferred Qualifications" as sub-sections, but the heading format is ``. I could do "Qualifications" as heading, and list both required and preferred inside. Or have two headings if both have substantial content. Both do have content. I'll see.
- "Skills": The posting has "Key Competencies". That could map to "Skills".
- "Benefits": Not explicitly listed, except maybe salary and physical demands. But the rule says: never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless the posting actually states them. Salary is stated: "$120,000 - $130,000". So I can have a "Pay" section. Benefits? Not really stated. I'll skip Benefits unless there's something. Physical demands are stated, but that's not really "Benefits". I'll put Pay as a section.
- "Schedule": Not stated. So no Schedule section.
- "Requirements": The posting has "Required Qualifications" and "Preferred Qualifications". I could use "Qualifications" as heading, or "Requirements". The user listed both as examples. I think I'll use "Qualifications" as the heading, and include both required and preferred under it, or maybe "Required Qualifications" as heading. But the rule says: use `` for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It lists both "Requirements" and "Qualifications". I need to decide. Looking at the content, "Required Qualifications" is a distinct section. "Preferred Qualifications" is another. I could combine them under one "Qualifications" heading, or have two headings. To avoid thin sections, I'll combine under "Qualifications". But the rule says: "include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it". Both have content. I'll just use "Qualifications" as heading, and list both required and preferred items. Or I could do "Required Qualifications" and "Preferred Qualifications" as separate `` sections. That might be okay, but the rule says "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." Two qualification sections might be thin. I'll combine.
- "Skills": The posting has "Key Competencies". That's skills. I'll use "Skills" as heading.
- "Pay": "$120,000 - $130,000" is stated. I'll include a "Pay" section.
- "Benefits": Not stated. Skip.
- "Schedule": Not stated. Skip.
- "About the role": The Position Summary is prose. I'll use "About the role" as heading, or maybe just keep it as `
` under a heading? The rule says use `
` for section headings. I'll use "About the role" as ``, then `
` for the summary text.
- Remove boilerplate: Equal opportunity statement, Powered by JazzHR, scam warning, etc. Also remove "Job ID / requisition numbers" if any. I don't see a job ID explicitly, but there's "9ColGYFxHp" at the end, which seems like a reference. I'll fold minor metadata into a short `
` or drop it. The rule: "Do NOT put Job ID / requisition numbers as headings — fold minor metadata into a short
or drop it." I'll just drop it or maybe put it in a tiny paragraph at the end, but since I'm removing boilerplate, I'll likely drop it or include it as a tiny `
` at the very end, but the rule says remove application instructions, etc. I'll probably just omit it, or if I need to fold it, I'll put it in a `
` at the bottom but not as a heading. However, the overall output should be clean. I'll just drop the JazzHR and EEO boilerplate.
- Preserve ALL substantive information; do NOT invent or summarize away detail. So I need to keep all the bullet points, qualifications, etc., exactly as they are, just reformatted.
- Use `
- ` for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. The bullet points are lists. I'll format them as `
- ...
`.
- Use `` for prose. The Position Summary and Physical Demands are prose.
- Do NOT repeat the job title as a heading. The page already shows it, so I won't add an `` or repeat "Senior Technical Writer".
- Never emit a heading followed by filler/placeholder text. So every `
` must have real content after it.
Let's plan the structure:
`About the role
`
`
...Position Summary text...
`
`Responsibilities
`
`- ...each responsibility bullet...
`
`Qualifications
`
`- ...Required Qualifications items...
- ...Preferred Qualifications items...
`
But careful: The rule says "include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it". Qualifications has content. I'll combine required and preferred under one "Qualifications" heading, or maybe two headings. I'll check the content depth. Required Qualifications has 7 items. Preferred Qualifications has 7 items. That's substantial. I could do two headings, but rule says "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." I'll combine under one "Qualifications" heading, with required and preferred distinguished maybe with sub-headers or just list them together. But the format is semantic HTML, I can use `- ` for each. I'll just list all qualifications under one `
`, marking required vs preferred. Or I could do `Required Qualifications
` and `Preferred Qualifications
`. Both have content. I think it's okay to have two, but to follow "few substantive sections", I'll combine. Let me re-read: "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." Having two qualification sections might be seen as thin, but they are substantive. I'll check typical parsing: often job postings have "Requirements" and "Qualifications" as separate. The user's examples include both "Requirements" and "Qualifications" as possible headings. I'll look at the posting: it says "Required Qualifications" and "Preferred Qualifications". I'll use "Qualifications" as the main heading, and inside, I'll have two sub-lists or mark them. But the heading is ``. I could do:
`Qualifications
`
`
Required:
`
`- ...required items...
`
`Preferred:
`
`- ...preferred items...
`
That seems reasonable. Or I could just put all under one `` with markers. I'll keep it clean.
`Skills
`
`- ...Key Competencies items...
`
`Pay
`
`$120,000 - $130,000
`
What about "Physical Demands"? It's substantive, but doesn't fit neatly into the listed headings. The user listed: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Physical demands could be part of "About the role" or maybe a separate section, but the rule says only include when real content. It has content. I could integrate it into "About the role" or create a section. But the user didn't list it as an example heading. I'll probably include it as part of the prose in "About the role" or after Responsibilities. But to keep it simple and follow the allowed headings, I'll maybe add a `` for Physical Demands after the main sections,
` for prose - Do NOT repeat job title as heading (page already shows it) - Do NOT put Job ID / requisition numbers as headings - fold minor metadata into short `
` or drop it - Preserve ALL substantive information; do NOT invent or summarize away detail - Remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, and application instructions - IMPORTANT: include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it — never emit a heading followed by filler/placeholder text (e.g. "commensurate with experience", "not specified", "N/A", "varies", "TBD") and never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless the posting actually states them - Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones - Output ONLY the HTML fragment — no `/`, no markdown code fences 2. **Analyze the Job Posting Text:** Let me parse the provided text. It's a job posting for "Senior Technical Writer". I need to extract relevant sections and structure them. Text structure: - Position Summary (prose) - Key Responsibilities (list of bullet points) - Required Qualifications (looks like a list, but formatted as paragraphs with line breaks) - Preferred Qualifications (similar) - Key Competencies (looks like a list) - Salary: $120,000 - $130,000 - Physical Demands (prose with some list-like items) - Equal Opportunity / MicroHealth statement (boilerplate - must remove) - Powered by JazzHR 9ColGYFxHp (boilerplate - must remove) I need to identify which sections have real, specific content, and which are boilerplate to remove. Let's break down by potential headings the user allowed: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. - "About the role": The "Position Summary" could be this. It has specific content. - "Responsibilities": "Key Responsibilities" section - has specific bullet points. - "Requirements": Might overlap with "Required Qualifications". The user said "Requirements" and "Qualifications" as possible headings. I'll need to decide. Looking at the rules: use `
` for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). I can use some of these. I should not create sections without content. "Requirements" might be covered by "Required Qualifications". I'll likely use "Required Qualifications" as a section, or merge into "Qualifications". The user listed both "Requirements" and "Qualifications" as examples. I'll pick one or structure carefully. Probably best to use "Required Qualifications" as the heading, or "Qualifications". But the rule says: include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it. The posting has "Required Qualifications" and "Preferred Qualifications". I'll likely create a "Qualifications" section that includes both required and preferred, or separate them. But I need to be careful not to create thin sections. The rule: "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." So maybe combine qualifications into one section, or have "Required Qualifications" and "Preferred Qualifications" as sub-sections, but the heading format is ``. I could do "Qualifications" as heading, and list both required and preferred inside. Or have two headings if both have substantial content. Both do have content. I'll see.
- "Skills": The posting has "Key Competencies". That could map to "Skills".
- "Benefits": Not explicitly listed, except maybe salary and physical demands. But the rule says: never create Pay/Schedule/Benefits sections unless the posting actually states them. Salary is stated: "$120,000 - $130,000". So I can have a "Pay" section. Benefits? Not really stated. I'll skip Benefits unless there's something. Physical demands are stated, but that's not really "Benefits". I'll put Pay as a section.
- "Schedule": Not stated. So no Schedule section.
- "Requirements": The posting has "Required Qualifications" and "Preferred Qualifications". I could use "Qualifications" as heading, or "Requirements". The user listed both as examples. I think I'll use "Qualifications" as the heading, and include both required and preferred under it, or maybe "Required Qualifications" as heading. But the rule says: use `` for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It lists both "Requirements" and "Qualifications". I need to decide. Looking at the content, "Required Qualifications" is a distinct section. "Preferred Qualifications" is another. I could combine them under one "Qualifications" heading, or have two headings. To avoid thin sections, I'll combine under "Qualifications". But the rule says: "include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it". Both have content. I'll just use "Qualifications" as heading, and list both required and preferred items. Or I could do "Required Qualifications" and "Preferred Qualifications" as separate `` sections. That might be okay, but the rule says "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." Two qualification sections might be thin. I'll combine.
- "Skills": The posting has "Key Competencies". That's skills. I'll use "Skills" as heading.
- "Pay": "$120,000 - $130,000" is stated. I'll include a "Pay" section.
- "Benefits": Not stated. Skip.
- "Schedule": Not stated. Skip.
- "About the role": The Position Summary is prose. I'll use "About the role" as heading, or maybe just keep it as `
` for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It lists both "Requirements" and "Qualifications". I need to decide. Looking at the content, "Required Qualifications" is a distinct section. "Preferred Qualifications" is another. I could combine them under one "Qualifications" heading, or have two headings. To avoid thin sections, I'll combine under "Qualifications". But the rule says: "include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it". Both have content. I'll just use "Qualifications" as heading, and list both required and preferred items. Or I could do "Required Qualifications" and "Preferred Qualifications" as separate `` sections. That might be okay, but the rule says "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." Two qualification sections might be thin. I'll combine.
- "Skills": The posting has "Key Competencies". That's skills. I'll use "Skills" as heading.
- "Pay": "$120,000 - $130,000" is stated. I'll include a "Pay" section.
- "Benefits": Not stated. Skip.
- "Schedule": Not stated. Skip.
- "About the role": The Position Summary is prose. I'll use "About the role" as heading, or maybe just keep it as `
` under a heading? The rule says use `
` for section headings. I'll use "About the role" as ``, then `
` for the summary text. - Remove boilerplate: Equal opportunity statement, Powered by JazzHR, scam warning, etc. Also remove "Job ID / requisition numbers" if any. I don't see a job ID explicitly, but there's "9ColGYFxHp" at the end, which seems like a reference. I'll fold minor metadata into a short `
` or drop it. The rule: "Do NOT put Job ID / requisition numbers as headings — fold minor metadata into a short
or drop it." I'll just drop it or maybe put it in a tiny paragraph at the end, but since I'm removing boilerplate, I'll likely drop it or include it as a tiny `
` at the very end, but the rule says remove application instructions, etc. I'll probably just omit it, or if I need to fold it, I'll put it in a `
` at the bottom but not as a heading. However, the overall output should be clean. I'll just drop the JazzHR and EEO boilerplate. - Preserve ALL substantive information; do NOT invent or summarize away detail. So I need to keep all the bullet points, qualifications, etc., exactly as they are, just reformatted. - Use `
- ` for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. The bullet points are lists. I'll format them as `
- ...
` for prose. The Position Summary and Physical Demands are prose. - Do NOT repeat the job title as a heading. The page already shows it, so I won't add an `` or repeat "Senior Technical Writer". - Never emit a heading followed by filler/placeholder text. So every `
` must have real content after it. Let's plan the structure: `
About the role
` `...Position Summary text...
` `Responsibilities
` `- ...each responsibility bullet...
Qualifications
` `- ...Required Qualifications items...
- ...Preferred Qualifications items...
- ` for each. I'll just list all qualifications under one `
- `, marking required vs preferred. Or I could do `
- ...required items...
- ...preferred items...
- ...Key Competencies items...
Required Qualifications
` and `Preferred Qualifications
`. Both have content. I think it's okay to have two, but to follow "few substantive sections", I'll combine. Let me re-read: "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." Having two qualification sections might be seen as thin, but they are substantive. I'll check typical parsing: often job postings have "Requirements" and "Qualifications" as separate. The user's examples include both "Requirements" and "Qualifications" as possible headings. I'll look at the posting: it says "Required Qualifications" and "Preferred Qualifications". I'll use "Qualifications" as the main heading, and inside, I'll have two sub-lists or mark them. But the heading is ``. I could do: `
Qualifications
` `Required:
` `Preferred:
` `- ` with markers. I'll keep it clean.
`
Skills
` `Pay
` `$120,000 - $130,000
` What about "Physical Demands"? It's substantive, but doesn't fit neatly into the listed headings. The user listed: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Physical demands could be part of "About the role" or maybe a separate section, but the rule says only include when real content. It has content. I could integrate it into "About the role" or create a section. But the user didn't list it as an example heading. I'll probably include it as part of the prose in "About the role" or after Responsibilities. But to keep it simple and follow the allowed headings, I'll maybe add a `` for Physical Demands after the main sections,