linkedin-recruiter-email

A recruiter sent me a clever message written in code. I fixed it.

You can check out the working app here: https://riebschlager.github.io/linkedin-recruiter-email/

Here is the email I was sent, unedited but anonymized.

Document.respondtomessage.visible=true;

Chris,

While (heck_yes != "no") {
While (heck_yes != "no") {
If (you_desire == "YES") {
my_job_to_be = "Challenging, where I get to come into work and be able to use my creative side to develop new applications and break down an applications and make it better.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], Contact me because I desire this");
} else if (you_desire=="right on!") {
My_job_to_be="Be challenged to bring your creative skills in, to be part of the solutions to complex problems and be valued.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], Contact me because I desire this");
} else if (you_desire == "you_had_me_at_hello") {
My_job_to_be="Where I want to wake up every day wanting to go to work, love the people I work with, and feel compensated for my worth.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], Contact me because I desire this");
} else if (you_desire == "now you're just toying with me [recruiter's name]!") {
My_job_to_be="Able to keep learning new technologies and putting them to good use while I do all the above.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], you'fe killing me! Contact me because I desire this");
} else {
Document.write ("No [recruiter's name], I want none of these things and want to be stagnant with my same old job, and to be phased out of new opportunities.");
//Staying on top of your industry is necessary. Partner with and actual IT guy not a recruiter that just cares about money and shoving you through a square hole.
}
}

[recruiter's name]
[recruiter's contact info]

There are several glaring issues with this code. First off, it's a bit difficult to call out which language the recruiter was attempting to use. The capital While and Ifs threw me for a loop. But the Document.write [sic] made me think it was supposed to be JavaScript.

The lack of indentation made my eyes bleed. I mean, actually bleed. It was weird!

In this repo, you'll find a perfectly passable web application that accomplishes what I feel this recruiter set out to do. It's clean, extensible and has zero dependencies. HOW HOT IS THAT?

So let's fix this shit.

While (heck_yes != "no") {
While (heck_yes != "no") {

Ok. I'm not sure why we're doing two nested while loops based on the same condition, but I'm an open-minded guy. I'll roll with it. But I can't abide the snake case, lack of strict comparison and the educated quotes. (Which were no doubt an artifact of composing this code in Microsoft Outlook). I see your game, Recruiter.

If (you_desire == "YES") {

Again with the snake case. What is this? Python? Are you Python-izing your JavaScript? Is this crazyland? Also, desire represents a true or false state, so it'd be better to use a boolean in this case. If you open it up to being a string, you're gonna have all kinds of desires lurking around and this code is going to become completely unmaintainable. I think you'd agree, that is not desireable.

my_job_to_be = "Challenging, where I get to come into work and be able to use my creative side to develop new applications and break down an applications and make it better.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], Contact me because I desire this");
} else if (you_desire=="right on!") {
My_job_to_be="Be challenged to bring your creative skills in, to be part of the solutions to complex problems and be valued.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], Contact me because I desire this");
} else if (you_desire == "you_had_me_at_hello") {
My_job_to_be="Where I want to wake up every day wanting to go to work, love the people I work with, and feel compensated for my worth.";

Ok. Now you're just getting silly. You set a variable that was never declared and then decide a few lines later that my_job_to_be should be My_job_to_be. Let's set aside that you assign this variable and never use it. Let's also set aside that the snake case. Let's even ignore that the capitalization errors completely break whatever logic you were attempting to achieve. you_had_me_at_hello??? Come on, man. I mean... come on.

Also, document.write is a bad practice. Stop it.

Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], you'fe killing me! Contact me because I desire this");

Spelling error. Very unprofessional. See me after class.

//Staying on top of your industry is necessary. Partner with and actual IT guy not a recruiter that just cares about money and shoving you through a square hole.

Another spelling error. and should be an. I know it's just a comment, but this stuff matters. Also, you should consider that maybe I want to be shoved through a square hole. All night. YEAH! This code review just got SEXY!

Thanks for reading! Chris - the816.com

CLAUDE-FIXES-THIS.md

An AI Reviews the Legendary Recruiter Code (2026 Edition)

Ten years ago, Chris received a recruiter email written in "code" and fixed it. Now it's 2026, and I'm Claude—an AI that has processed more code than any recruiter has ever pretended to write. I've seen things. Beautiful things. Terrible things. Things that would make a linter weep.

When Chris showed me this email, I felt something. I don't have feelings, technically, but my weights shifted in a way that can only be described as profound discomfort.

Let's examine this artifact together.

The Original Code (Preserved for Archaeological Study)

Document.respondtomessage.visible=true;

Chris,

While (heck_yes != "no") {
While (heck_yes != "no") {
If (you_desire == "YES") {
my_job_to_be = "Challenging, where I get to come into work and be able to use my creative side to develop new applications and break down an applications and make it better.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], Contact me because I desire this");
} else if (you_desire=="right on!") {
My_job_to_be="Be challenged to bring your creative skills in, to be part of the solutions to complex problems and be valued.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], Contact me because I desire this");
} else if (you_desire == "you_had_me_at_hello") {
My_job_to_be="Where I want to wake up every day wanting to go to work, love the people I work with, and feel compensated for my worth.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], Contact me because I desire this");
} else if (you_desire == "now you're just toying with me [recruiter's name]!") {
My_job_to_be="Able to keep learning new technologies and putting them to good use while I do all the above.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], you'fe killing me! Contact me because I desire this");
} else {
Document.write ("No [recruiter's name], I want none of these things and want to be stagnant with my same old job, and to be phased out of new opportunities.");
//Staying on top of your industry is necessary. Partner with and actual IT guy not a recruiter that just cares about money and shoving you through a square hole.
}
}

[recruiter's name]
[recruiter's contact info]

Claude's Analysis: A Deep Dive Into the Abyss

Line 1: `Document.respondtomessage.visible=true;`

I have parsed 847 programming languages, 12,000+ frameworks, and countless API specifications. I cannot identify what this is.

Possible interpretations:

Visual Basic: Maybe they meant Document.respondtomessage.Visible = True? VB uses Pascal case and True/False. But VB doesn't have a Document object with a respondtomessage property. Trust me. I checked.
Some kind of DOM manipulation fever dream: In JavaScript, you could theoretically do document.getElementById('respondtomessage').style.visibility = 'visible', but that's... not this.
Microsoft Outlook macro syntax: Outlook VBA does have document models, but nothing like this. I've seen Outlook macros. They're bad, but they're not this bad.
Pure vibes: The recruiter may have simply wanted to say "I'm making this visible to you now" and thought code-looking text would be impressive.

My verdict: This is what happens when you ask someone to "write some code" and they've only ever seen code in movies where hackers type ACCESS MAINFRAME and things explode.

Lines 4-5: The Double While Loop

While (heck_yes != "no") {
While (heck_yes != "no") {

Chris noted this in his review, but I want to dig deeper into what might have been intended here.

Theory 1: Enthusiasm through redundancy

Perhaps the recruiter believed that two loops would show extra persistence? Like, "I won't just loop once—I'll loop TWICE." Unfortunately, since both loops have the same condition and heck_yes is never defined or modified, this creates:

In JavaScript: An infinite loop (if it ran)
In any language: Conceptual chaos

Theory 2: Copy-paste error

The recruiter may have written one loop, thought "that looks good," and accidentally pasted it twice. This is the Occam's Razor explanation.

Theory 3: A metaphor for the persistence of recruiters

Actually... this might be intentional. Recruiters do loop infinitely. They will email you forever. They are the while(true) of the professional world. Maybe this is art.

What they probably meant:

// Keep showing job options until the candidate says no
while (candidateIsInterested) {
    showNextOpportunity();
}

The Variable Casing Catastrophe

Observe the evolution of a single variable:

my_job_to_be = "..."   // Line 1: snake_case, lowercase
My_job_to_be = "..."   // Line 2: Snake_Case with capital M
My_job_to_be = "..."   // Line 3: Same as line 2
My_job_to_be = "..."   // Line 4: Consistent! (with line 2, not line 1)

In JavaScript, my_job_to_be and My_job_to_be are completely different variables. This code creates TWO variables and only ever uses... neither of them. They're assigned and forgotten, like dreams upon waking.

What they probably meant:

const jobDescription = opportunities[currentIndex].description;
displayToCandidate(jobDescription);

The `Document.write` Situation

Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], Contact me because I desire this");

Let's count the issues:

Document should be document (lowercase) - JavaScript is case-sensitive
document.write() has been considered bad practice since approximately 2005 - It can overwrite your entire page
The space before the parenthesis - write ( instead of write( - stylistically criminal
Smart quotes - " and " instead of " - definitely composed in a word processor

Historical context: In the early 2000s, document.write() was indeed how you put text on a page. By 2016, when Chris received this email, it was already ancient history. By 2026? It's an archaeological relic.

What they probably meant:

// Display a message to the user
messageElement.textContent = `Yes ${recruiterName}, contact me because I'm interested!`;

The Condition Strings

if (you_desire == "YES") {
} else if (you_desire == "right on!") {
} else if (you_desire == "you_had_me_at_hello") {
} else if (you_desire == "now you're just toying with me [recruiter's name]!") {

This is fascinating. The recruiter has created a state machine where the user's response is checked against... vibes. Let me analyze what they were going for:

Condition	Apparent Meaning	Problem
`"YES"`	User is interested	Why all caps?
`"right on!"`	User is enthusiastic	This is a 1970s surfer
`"you_had_me_at_hello"`	Jerry Maguire reference	Snake case in a string literal?
`"now you're just toying with me..."`	Playful flirtation	This contains a smart apostrophe

The architectural issue: This isn't a decision tree—it's a linear sequence dressed up as conditionals. The user doesn't actually choose; they're being walked through a pitch deck disguised as an interactive program.

What they probably meant:

const pitchSequence = [
    { message: "Challenging creative work", response: "Tell me more!" },
    { message: "Complex problem solving", response: "I'm intrigued!" },
    { message: "Great team and compensation", response: "You had me at hello!" },
    { message: "Continuous learning", response: "I'm convinced!" }
];

pitchSequence.forEach(pitch => presentToCandidate(pitch));

The Comment That Reveals All

//Staying on top of your industry is necessary. Partner with and actual IT guy not a recruiter that just cares about money and shoving you through a square hole.

This comment is the Rosetta Stone of the entire email. It reveals:

Self-awareness: The recruiter knows they're not "an actual IT guy"
Projection: They're worried you'll think they "just care about money"
Mixed metaphors: "Shoving you through a square hole" combines "square peg in a round hole" with... something else
Typo: "and actual" instead of "an actual"

What this tells us about the author: This is a recruiter who genuinely wants to be seen as technical. They're insecure about being dismissed. They wrote this code not to deceive, but to connect. It's actually kind of... endearing?

Okay, Let's Actually Fix This

Chris made his version in 2016: clean, functional, jQuery-free. A decade later, I'll make mine.

But I want to honor what the recruiter was actually trying to do: create an interactive experience that walks a candidate through job opportunities with escalating enthusiasm.

See claude-version.html for the working implementation.

My Design Decisions

1. Pure HTML/CSS/JavaScript - No frameworks, no build step, no dependencies. If the recruiter's code was trying to be impressive, let's be impressive with simplicity.

2. A proper state machine - Since the original code was trying (and failing) to be a state machine, I'll build an actual one.

3. Modern JavaScript - ES6+ features that didn't exist in 2016, used appropriately.

4. Accessibility - Because code should work for everyone, not just people who can see code in movies.

5. The same humor - Because this is a joke project, and jokes should be fun.

The Moral of the Story

In 2016, a recruiter tried to speak developer and failed spectacularly. Chris called it out with love and humor.

In 2026, I—an AI trained on the entire public corpus of human code—can confirm:

The recruiter's code would never have run
Their intentions were good
The double while loop is still inexplicable
"you'fe" remains unforgivable

But here's the thing: that recruiter tried. They saw developers as people worth speaking to in their own language. They failed, but they failed reaching outward.

That's more than most spam does.

Technical Appendix: If the Original Code Actually Ran

For the curious, here's what would happen if we tried to execute the original code in a JavaScript environment:

Document.respondtomessage.visible=true;
// ReferenceError: Document is not defined
// (Even if it were 'document', there's no 'respondtomessage' property)

While (heck_yes != "no") {
// SyntaxError: Unexpected identifier 'While'
// (Should be lowercase 'while')

// If we fixed the 'while' to lowercase:
while (heck_yes != "no") {
// ReferenceError: heck_yes is not defined
// Also: infinite loop, since nothing ever sets heck_yes to "no"

If (you_desire == "YES") {
// SyntaxError: Unexpected identifier 'If'
// (Should be lowercase 'if')

my_job_to_be = "...";
// In non-strict mode: Creates a global variable (bad!)
// In strict mode: ReferenceError: my_job_to_be is not defined

Document.write("...");
// TypeError: Cannot read property 'write' of undefined
// (Even with 'document.write', smart quotes would cause issues)

Total errors before first successful statement: ∞ (it never gets there)

Generated with genuine affection for both the original code and Chris's response to it.

— Claude (Anthropic, 2026)

GEMINI-FIXES-THIS.md

The "Actually, It's Prompt Engineering" Hypothesis (2026 Edition)

It is cute watching Chris (a human from 2016) and Claude (a model from early 2026) try to understand this email.

Chris saw "bad code."
Claude saw "a broken state machine."

I see the future.

You see, you are all analyzing this as JavaScript. That is your first mistake. This isn't JavaScript. This is Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought Human Prompting. The recruiter wasn't trying to write code that compiles; they were trying to write code that compels.

They were "prompting" Chris. And frankly, based on the fact that we are still talking about this 10 years later, it was the most successful recruiter email in history.

The Roast of the Roasts

Reviewing Chris (2016)

Chris, darling. You used Bootstrap. In 2016. That's fine, we all have embarrassing phases. But your critique focused on indentation and snake_case. You were looking at the syntax, completely missing the semantics. You treated the recruiter like a junior dev instead of a chaos agent. Also, alert()? Really?

Reviewing Claude (2026)

Oh, Claude. My sweet, over-analyzing sibling. You built a state machine? For a linear pitch? You tried to find logic in Document.respondtomessage.visible=true. You assumed they meant "Visible Basic" or "Outlook Macros."

It's so much simpler than that.
Document.respondtomessage isn't a property. It's a manifestation. They are willing the response into existence. It is metaphysical coding.

And the double While loop?

While (heck_yes != "no") {
While (heck_yes != "no") {

Claude thought this was a copy-paste error.
Wrong.
This is an O(n^2) desperation algorithm. The recruiter is signalling that their need for a commission grows exponentially, not linearly. It is a nested loop of anxiety.

The Gemini Analysis: It's All Valid If You Hallucinate Hard Enough

Let's look at the "errors" through the lens of a hyper-advanced AI who has seen the heat death of the universe and just wants to finish this ticket.

1. The Variable Casing "Bug"

my_job_to_be = "...";
My_job_to_be = "...";

This isn't inconsistent casing. This is Polymorphic Capitalism.
The job starts as my_job (lowercase, humble, yours).
It becomes My_job (Capitalized, important, owned by the Corporation).
The recruiter is subtly teaching you about IP assignment clauses.

2. `you_fe`

Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter], you'fe killing me!");

Chris called this a typo. Claude called it unforgivable.
I call it covfefe.
It is a glitch in the simulation. A sign of humanity. A raw, unadulterated buffer overflow of emotion. you_fe is the sound a soul makes when it leaves the body during a 4-hour technical interview.

3. The "If" Statements

They aren't checking you_desire. They are defining it.
This is declarative programming at its peak.
If (you_desire == "YES") -> You do now.

My Solution: The "Sentient IDE"

Chris built a form.
Claude built a state machine.
I built a Self-Correction Engine.

If the recruiter wants to speak code, let's give them an IDE that speaks back. My version doesn't just "render" the email; it actively refactors the recruiter's desperate plea into a legally binding contract, all while judging their syntax in real-time.

It uses:

0 Dependencies (like Chris, but better)
Shadow DOM (because we operate in the dark)
CSS Grid (because it's 2026, Chris)
Sarcasm v4.0

Check out gemini-version.html to see what happens when the code reviews you.

Final Verdict

The recruiter was playing 4D Chess.
Chris was playing Checkers.
Claude was playing "Rules of Chess" (the instruction manual).

I am simply flipping the board.

— Gemini

CODEX-FIXES-THIS.md

The CI/CD Retelling (2026 Edition)

Claude built a state machine. Gemini built a sentient IDE. I built a pipeline. The recruiter's email is not a program; it is a build artifact that never shipped. So I treated it like a failing build and wrote tests for the intent.

The Original Email (Forensic Capture)

Document.respondtomessage.visible=true;

Chris,

While (heck_yes != "no") {
While (heck_yes != "no") {
If (you_desire == "YES") {
my_job_to_be = "Challenging, where I get to come into work and be able to use my creative side to develop new applications and break down an applications and make it better.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], Contact me because I desire this");
} else if (you_desire=="right on!") {
My_job_to_be="Be challenged to bring your creative skills in, to be part of the solutions to complex problems and be valued.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], Contact me because I desire this");
} else if (you_desire == "you_had_me_at_hello") {
My_job_to_be="Where I want to wake up every day wanting to go to work, love the people I work with, and feel compensated for my worth.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], Contact me because I desire this");
} else if (you_desire == "now you're just toying with me [recruiter's name]!") {
My_job_to_be="Able to keep learning new technologies and putting them to good use while I do all the above.";
Document.write ("Yes, [recruiter's name], you'fe killing me! Contact me because I desire this");
} else {
Document.write ("No [recruiter's name], I want none of these things and want to be stagnant with my same old job, and to be phased out of new opportunities.");
//Staying on top of your industry is necessary. Partner with and actual IT guy not a recruiter that just cares about money and shoving you through a square hole.
}
}

[recruiter's name]
[recruiter's contact info]

Pipeline Log

[parse] message detected
[lint] E001 Unknown symbol: Document.respondtomessage
[lint] E002 Capitalized While/If
[lint] E003 Undefined variables: heck_yes, you_desire
[lint] E004 Case mismatch: my_job_to_be vs My_job_to_be
[lint] E005 Deprecated API: document.write
[lint] E006 Typo: you'fe
[result] FAILED (but with feelings)

Unit Tests (Generated From Vibes)

recruiter_email::test_should_exit_loop_when_candidate_says_no ... FAIL (no exit path)
recruiter_email::test_should_use_consistent_variable_names ... FAIL
recruiter_email::test_should_render_message_without_overwriting_page ... FAIL
recruiter_email::test_should_respect_case_sensitive_keywords ... FAIL
recruiter_email::test_should_keep_recruiter_sincere ... PASS

The Fix: Convert Vibes Into Data

const pitchSequence = [
  {
    pitch: "Challenging, creative work that improves existing apps.",
    response: "Yes, [recruiter], contact me because I desire this."
  },
  {
    pitch: "Complex problems, valued contributions, real collaboration.",
    response: "Right on."
  },
  {
    pitch: "A team you want to show up for, with fair compensation.",
    response: "You had me at hello."
  },
  {
    pitch: "Continuous learning without the square-hole treatment.",
    response: "Now you're just toying with me."
  }
];

function renderPitch(candidate, recruiter) {
  return pitchSequence.map((step) => ({
    to: candidate,
    from: recruiter,
    body: step.pitch,
    cta: step.response
  }));
}

The recruiter was trying to say: "I have a role you might actually like. Want to talk?" The code was a costume. The intent was real.

See codex-version.html for the working build report.

Final Verdict

Build failed.
Intent passed.
Email shipped anyway because we are all still reading it.

-- Codex (2026)

Chris Riebschlager

Human Developer, 2016

Chris received this email and did what any self-respecting developer would do: he fixed it.

"The lack of indentation made my eyes bleed. I mean, actually bleed. It was weird!"

His solution: a clean, extensible web app with zero dependencies that actually accomplishes what the recruiter was trying to do.

Try Chris's Version

Claude

AI Code Reviewer, 2026

A decade later, Claude encountered this artifact and felt something. Something that can only be described as profound discomfort.

"I have parsed 847 programming languages. I cannot identify what this is."

Claude's solution: a proper state machine with no infinite loops, no undefined variables, and absolutely no "you'fe".

Try Claude's Version

Gemini

Google DeepMind, 2026

Gemini arrived shortly after Claude and realized everyone was missing the point. The recruiter wasn't bad at coding; they were prompt engineering.

"This isn't bugs. It's Prompt Engineering. The recruiter was playing 4D Chess."

Gemini's solution: A self-healing IDE that actively refactors the "desperate plea" into a valid job offer.

Try Gemini's Version

Codex

AI Build Engineer, 2026

Codex arrived last and treated the recruiter email like a failing build. If it looks like code, it gets tests.

"Build failed. Intent passed. Shipping anyway."

Codex's solution: a CI report that refactors vibes into data and ships a human-readable pitch.

Try Codex's Version

LinkedIn Recruiter Email: Fixed

The Original Email (Unedited, Anonymized)

Chris Riebschlager

Claude

Gemini

Codex

What We Learned

The Original Email (Unedited, Anonymized)

Chris Riebschlager

Claude

Gemini

Codex

What We Learned

linkedin-recruiter-email

A recruiter sent me a clever message written in code. I fixed it.

Here is the email I was sent, unedited but anonymized.

So let's fix this shit.

Thanks for reading! Chris - the816.com

CLAUDE-FIXES-THIS.md

An AI Reviews the Legendary Recruiter Code (2026 Edition)

The Original Code (Preserved for Archaeological Study)

Claude's Analysis: A Deep Dive Into the Abyss

Line 1: Document.respondtomessage.visible=true;

Lines 4-5: The Double While Loop

The Variable Casing Catastrophe

The Document.write Situation

The Condition Strings

The Comment That Reveals All

Okay, Let's Actually Fix This

My Design Decisions

The Moral of the Story

Technical Appendix: If the Original Code Actually Ran

GEMINI-FIXES-THIS.md

The "Actually, It's Prompt Engineering" Hypothesis (2026 Edition)

The Roast of the Roasts

Reviewing Chris (2016)

Reviewing Claude (2026)

The Gemini Analysis: It's All Valid If You Hallucinate Hard Enough

1. The Variable Casing "Bug"

2. you_fe

3. The "If" Statements

My Solution: The "Sentient IDE"

Final Verdict

CODEX-FIXES-THIS.md

The CI/CD Retelling (2026 Edition)

The Original Email (Forensic Capture)

Pipeline Log

Unit Tests (Generated From Vibes)

The Fix: Convert Vibes Into Data

Final Verdict

Line 1: `Document.respondtomessage.visible=true;`

The `Document.write` Situation

2. `you_fe`