Two months with WorkBuddy: I tore down my Feishu Sheets + Qwen resume screening workflow

I read that 2026 AI industry high-salary job guide twice. Median monthly salary for algorithm engineers tops 70k, multimodal architects 90k to 120k, AI security compliance experts 80k to 100k, and underneath it adds a line: "job gap 12x."

After reading it I closed the page, opened WorkBuddy, and threw in the JDs for three roles I need to close next week.

We're not hiring that batch of people. But the work described in that list, I do it every day.

1. WorkBuddy vs "Feishu spreadsheet + Qwen": even for a single file, WorkBuddy wins at ten or more

The old process went like this. Resumes first land in a Feishu spreadsheet, make a screening view; pick out a single one and paste it into Qwen, have it score against the JD and suggest three interview questions; then manually paste the result back into the spreadsheet.

I used this for two months, it works. The problem is that middle stretch.

For a single resume, what Qwen gives isn't worse than WorkBuddy, sometimes it's even more detailed. But from the tenth one on, you start getting annoyed. Copy, paste, wait, copy, paste, wait. By the end of the day your fingers are sore and your brain is empty.

Later I threw the whole folder at WorkBuddy, let it read on its own, categorize on its own, produce a summary table on its own. In my testing, about two hundred files took roughly forty minutes, fields include role match, years of experience, current company, three follow-up points. The result lands directly as a table, I open it and can edit it.

There are misreads too, seven or eight need a manual pass. Mostly scanned copies and two-column PDFs where the text order gets scrambled. I don't blame it for that, I have to squint at those few myself.

Parsing quality is close between the two, but at ten or more, WorkBuddy wins on not having to copy back and forth. That's a process gap, and what it saves is attention.

One more detail. With Qwen before, I had to rewrite the prompt every time, and if I wrote it badly it started praising the candidate. Now I've baked those requirements into a document in WorkBuddy, and each time I only swap the JD and the folder path. The output is much more stable. Last Wednesday I ran the same batch of resumes twice, the score rankings were basically identical both times, only two floated around the mid range. That stability matters more than a pretty answer.

2. WorkBuddy vs Coze: one handles long flows, one handles triggers

I used Coze for a month, the group bot part is genuinely handy, interview invitations, schedule reminders, candidate status changes, it pushes right on time.

But scheduled tasks have an old problem, I wrote about it last time. The moment the format changes you need manual fallback. Last month the business side changed two header fields in the resume template, and my scheduled task pushed empty data for three days straight, the logs were spotless, not a single error. By the time I found out, two candidates had been stuck in pending screening for three days.

I generally don't use WorkBuddy for scheduling. Its strength is processing a pile of files in one go, running from start to finish without me watching. JD breakdown, resume categorization, interview question generation, summary table export, one chain runs through, and at the end I just look at the result.

So my division of labor now is this: Coze is the doorbell, WorkBuddy is the kitchen. The doorbell's job is to call me when something's up, the kitchen's job is to cook this pile of stuff through.

Some people ask why I don't merge them into one. I tried. Hanging a scheduled trigger on WorkBuddy, it runs, sure, but it's better suited to me sitting down, handing it a batch of material, and waiting for a finished product. Making it go flip through folders on a schedule means writing an extra layer of scheduling, and one more layer is one more thing that can break.

Want it to run automatically on schedule, use Coze; want it to swallow a pile of files at once and spit out a finished product, use WorkBuddy. So far I haven't found a tool that does both cleanly, and I don't think there'll be one anytime soon.

3. Let me say something unpleasant

The PPT part, I used it three times, twice the layout collapsed. Charts come out fine, but a page with four charts crammed in, it can't lay out well, font sizes fight each other. Later I changed to having it only produce the outline and key points per page, and I do the layout myself in WPS, which is actually faster.

It can't recognize merged cells in tables. I have a few performance tables that came back from the business side, headers are merged, throw them in and everything reads misaligned. You have to flatten them yourself before feeding.

The worst time was when I got lazy and wrote four things into one paragraph: screen resumes, generate interview questions, write rejection letter templates, generate weekly report. Result: it did all four, and all four came out wrong. Later I learned my lesson, one thing at a time, finish then next. This lesson I've stepped on with every other tool too, I just keep forgetting.

Last

That list says AI jobs have a 12x gap, I don't quite believe that number. But what really blocks small teams is the lack of a person who can make sense of two hundred resumes, three roles, two days.

A tool can replace part of the hands, not the judgment. WorkBuddy sped up the resume-reading step for me, but whether to hire this person, I still decide myself.

On my side I brought in the tool first, and after using it I went back and changed the process. Only after changing it did I realize the old process had been making do all along.