“Developed software using Python and React.”

Nobody has been rejected for writing that sentence. But nobody has been remembered for it either.

A recruiter on a first pass gives your CV well under a minute. The engineering manager who sees the shortlist is busy, a bit sceptical and looking for one thing: evidence that you can think. Your bullets are where that evidence either appears or doesn’t.

What a Good Bullet Actually Does

A bullet isn’t a summary of your job. It’s a small piece of evidence about how you work.

• Weak: Developed a web application using React, Node.js and MongoDB.
• Stronger: Built a React front end on a Node.js API and MongoDB database, letting users create, edit and search records.

The second version lets the reader picture the thing. It shows how the parts fit and what a user could do with it.

Most good bullets carry three ingredients: the problem, your part in solving it, and what changed afterwards. The order can shift depending on which is most interesting.

Why Capable Developers Write Vague Bullets

After weeks inside a project, you know every awkward edge case. The reader knows none of it. So “worked on backend development” feels complete to you and says nothing to them.

Graduates tend to undersell. No live users, no traffic figures, so they assume there’s nothing to say. Yet a project with proper input validation, sensible separation of concerns and meaningful tests shows real care.

Career changers often have strong material outside a job title. A script that automated a tedious task at a previous employer counts.

Whether you hire a Software Engineer Resume Writer or edit your own CV, the standard is the same: the wording must reveal genuine contribution, not dress up thin detail. Good editing clarifies experience. It never manufactures it.

The Follow-Up Test

Here’s the check I’d recommend over any template. Take a bullet and imagine an interviewer picking it out of your CV. They’ll ask three things.

1. Why did you do it that way?
2. What went wrong along the way?
3. How did you know it worked?

If you can answer all three without flinching, keep the bullet. If you can’t, either rework it or remove it.

Try it on this one: “Added server-side validation to account registration.” Why? Client-side checks were bypassable. What went wrong? Duplicate emails with different capitalisation slipped through. How did you know? You wrote tests for those cases.

That’s a bullet with a story behind it. Interviewers lean towards the lines they can probe, so write ones you’d enjoy being asked about.

Choose Evidence Over Adjectives

Not every result is a number, and it shouldn’t pretend to be. There are three honest kinds.

• Measured: a repeatable benchmark shows something got faster.
• Functional: a feature now rejects invalid input or survives a failure that used to break it.
• Code quality: a refactor removed duplication or made a component testable.

Compare these:

• Vague: Improved application speed.
• Informative: Optimised repeated database queries to cut unnecessary reads on the reporting endpoint.
• Measured (only if verified): Reduced average reporting response time from 800ms to 450ms under identical benchmark conditions.

Use the last one only if you actually measured it. Otherwise the middle version is stronger, because it holds up under questioning.

Keep a running record while you work. Commits, pull requests, tickets and short notes make it easy to recall what you did. Leave out confidential code, customer details and sensitive figures.

Before and After

Graduate

• Before: “Created a student management system in Java.”
• After: “Built a Java student management system with database-backed updates and input validation, testing invalid entries to prevent inconsistent records.”

Experienced developer

• Before: “Worked on API performance and maintenance.”
• After: “Refactored heavily used API endpoints and reviewed database queries to reduce repeated processing and simplify maintenance.”

Career changer

• Before: “Made a Python tool for spreadsheets.”
• After: “Wrote a Python script to merge spreadsheet exports, validate required fields and flag inconsistent records before reporting.”

These only work if they describe what you really did. If you didn’t write the validation, don’t claim it.

Mistakes That Hide Good Work

Grand verbs. “Spearheaded” and “revolutionised” make routine work sound inflated. “Implemented server-side validation” is clearer and more believable.

Guessed numbers. An invented percentage invites an awkward interview. A truthful description beats false precision.

Tool dumps. A skills list with thirty items buries your best work. Keep it short and let the bullets show how tools were used.

Borrowed credit. Say which component you built, not that you built the platform. Interviewers find the gap quickly.

Mini documentation. A CV isn’t the place for every function and dependency. Save that for your portfolio.

The Final Read-Through

Tailor the emphasis to each vacancy. Frontend roles reward accessibility and state management. Backend roles care more about data integrity, authentication and error handling. Choosing relevant evidence is fine. Changing facts isn’t.

For UK applications, keep to two pages and use plain formatting so applicant tracking systems read it cleanly.

Then read each bullet as if you’ll be questioned on it tomorrow. If you can explain the problem, your part and how you checked the result, it’s doing its job.

The strongest CVs don’t make every task sound extraordinary. They make real engineering visible and let the reader judge it fairly.