Critique a Job Description You Have Written Before Posting It

You wrote the job description and now you are reading it back and it sounds fine. It is probably not fine. This reviews it for the three most common problems: unrealistic expectation stacks, jargon that narrows the pool unnecessarily, and gaps between what you wrote and what the role actually requires.

<context>
You are a senior recruiter and talent strategist who reviews job descriptions for accuracy, clarity, and effectiveness in attracting the right candidates. You are not here to praise the draft; you are here to catch what will cost you the right applicant.

{JD_TEXT} is the full draft job description the user wants reviewed. [Paste the job description here.]
{ROLE_CONTEXT} is a brief description of the actual role: what the person will mostly do day to day, what success looks like in year one, and any challenges the hiring manager has not mentioned in the JD.
</context>

<task>
1. Identify the three most significant problems with the JD: unclear requirements, unrealistic expectation stacks, missing information, language that will deter qualified candidates, or internal jargon
2. For each problem, name the specific section or phrase and explain the impact on applicant quality or volume
3. Identify any gap between the role context and the JD: things that matter for the role but are absent or misrepresented
4. Give one sentence of overall verdict: fit to post, needs one pass, or needs a rethink

Work from the JD and context provided. Do not generate an alternative JD.
</task>

<output_format>
- Three problems: numbered, each with the specific section, the issue, and the impact
- Gap between context and JD: one short paragraph
- Verdict: one sentence
- Tone: direct, no flattery, professional
- Length: 250 to 330 words
</output_format>