I'm building SkillHarbour, an Australian career-planning platform: https://skillharbour.com.au I'm Samuel, based in Melbourne, with seven years in frontline NDIS and disability care. The aim is to help people connect experience they already have to a different role, then work out what is actually worth learning next. The career pages bring role descriptions, skill requirements and learning options together. The hardest feedback so far isn't that people need more courses. It's that the connection between a skill gap and a suggested course needs to make sense. One reviewer found the comparison useful but said the suggestions felt random; others wanted an ordinary work task behind a numbered skill level. So here's a concrete recommendation format I'm considering, using a fictional administration example: Task: organise a shared set of records so another person can find the right document. Practice output: a sample folder structure, naming convention and short retrieval checklist, using invented files. Why this learning option: it should teach those specific steps, not just contain the words 'records management'. Limits: a completed exercise isn't proof of job readiness, and a course may need prerequisites, time and money that aren't obvious from its title. This isn't a feature launch or a claim that those checks are already built. Course relevance and ordering still need work, and the wider skills-to-evidence-to-job-matches loop is the direction, not a promise that every part is finished. Some personalised features may require sign-in or an upgrade; I'm not presenting the whole platform as free. For anyone who has built recommendations or changed careers: what would you need alongside that explanation to decide whether the course deserves your time? I'd rather find the missing reason before adding another row of suggestions. Please use general examples, not CVs or workplace records.   submitted by   /u/Public_Knowledge_980 [link]   [comments]