{"id":265542,"date":"2026-07-11T18:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-11T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/?p=265542"},"modified":"2026-07-05T20:41:44","modified_gmt":"2026-07-05T11:41:44","slug":"chatgpt-resume-prompts-ats-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/chatgpt-resume-prompts-ats-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"ChatGPT Resume Prompts for ATS in 2026: 11 Frameworks Tested Against Workday, Greenhouse &amp; Lever"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"background:#e8f0fe;border-left:4px solid #4285f4;padding:16px 20px;margin:0 0 28px;border-radius:4px;\">\n<p style=\"margin:0 0 8px;color:#1a73e8;font-size:0.9em;font-weight:700;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:0.05em;\">Quick Answer<\/p>\n<ul style=\"margin:0;padding-left:20px;color:#333;\">\n<li style=\"margin-bottom:6px;\">Start every resume prompt by pasting the full job description \u2014 GPT-4o mirrors the JD&#8217;s exact phrasing, which maps directly to Workday&#8217;s keyword parser<\/li>\n<li style=\"margin-bottom:6px;\">Strip all tables, text boxes, and two-column layouts before uploading to Greenhouse or iCIMS \u2014 both parsers lose content in multi-column formats<\/li>\n<li style=\"margin-bottom:6px;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Claude_(language_model)\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener nofollow external noreferrer\" data-wpel-link=\"external\">Claude<\/a> Sonnet 4.6 produces cleaner plain-text output than GPT-4o by default; GPT-4o wins on keyword density precision<\/li>\n<li style=\"margin-bottom:0;\">Verify keyword gaps with Jobscan or Resume Worded before submitting \u2014 both tools surface which ATS keywords your draft is missing<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<h1>ChatGPT Resume Prompts for ATS in 2026: 11 Frameworks Tested Against Workday, Greenhouse &amp; Lever<\/h1>\n<p>Generic ChatGPT resume prompts get resumes rejected by Applicant Tracking Systems before a human ever sees them. The problem isn&#8217;t the AI \u2014 it&#8217;s the prompt.<\/p>\n<p>This guide covers 11 prompt frameworks tested against Workday, Greenhouse, Lever, and iCIMS, plus a direct comparison of GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Gemini 2.0 for resume work.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-size:0.85em;color:#777;font-style:italic;\">Last updated: 2026-06-19<\/p>\n<h2>Why Generic ChatGPT Resume Prompts Fail ATS Parsing<\/h2>\n<p>The most common mistake is asking ChatGPT to &#8220;improve my resume&#8221; without feeding it the job description. ATS platforms like Workday and Greenhouse score resumes against specific keywords in the job posting \u2014 not against a universal quality standard.<\/p>\n<p>A prompt like &#8220;make my resume better&#8221; produces polished prose but zero keyword alignment. Workday&#8217;s keyword parser weights exact phrases from the job description. Generic improvements score near zero on ATS keyword matching.<\/p>\n<p>The second failure mode: GPT-4o sometimes outputs markdown formatting \u2014 asterisks, bold markers, or code-style bullets. These artifacts don&#8217;t parse cleanly in iCIMS or Lever, and can cause field-mapping errors in Greenhouse.<\/p>\n<div style=\"background:#fff3cd;border-left:4px solid #ffa500;padding:14px 18px;margin:20px 0;border-radius:4px;\">\n<p style=\"margin:0;font-weight:700;color:#856404;\">&#9888;&#65039; Warning<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin:8px 0 0;color:#333;\">Never ask ChatGPT to add metrics you don&#8217;t have. Invented numbers can surface in reference calls and background checks \u2014 a common reason ATS-optimized resumes fail at the human screening stage. Instead, use Framework 6 (Achievement Reframe) \u2014 it draws specificity from accomplishments you already own, without inventing data.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<figure style=\"margin:24px 0;text-align:center;\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/chatgpt-resume-prompts-ats-2026-internal-1-hero.jpg\" alt=\"Why Generic ChatGPT Resume Prompts Fail ATS Parsing\" style=\"max-width:100%;height:auto;border-radius:8px;\" loading=\"lazy\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<h2>How Workday, Greenhouse, Lever, and iCIMS Parse Resumes Differently<\/h2>\n<p>Each ATS platform has its own parsing logic. Knowing the differences tells you which prompt frameworks to use \u2014 and what formatting to avoid before you upload.<\/p>\n<table style=\"width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;margin:20px 0;\">\n<thead>\n<tr style=\"background:#002060;color:white;\">\n<th style=\"padding:10px 12px;text-align:left;font-weight:600;\">ATS Platform<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:10px 12px;text-align:left;font-weight:600;\">Keyword Matching<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:10px 12px;text-align:left;font-weight:600;\">Common Format Issues<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:10px 12px;text-align:left;font-weight:600;\">Best Prompt Strategy<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8f9fa;\">\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;font-weight:600;\">Workday<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Exact + semantic phrase matching<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Tables lose columns; text boxes invisible to parser<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Mirror JD exact phrases in bullet points<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;font-weight:600;\">Greenhouse<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Keyword density scoring<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Two-column layouts split incorrectly across fields<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Dense single-column bullets; high keyword repeat<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8f9fa;\">\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;font-weight:600;\">Lever<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Skills section weighted heavily<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Headers and footers sometimes stripped during parse<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Explicit Skills section populated with JD keywords<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;font-weight:600;\">iCIMS<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Section-by-section parsing<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Non-standard section labels leave fields blank<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Standard labels: Experience, Education, Skills only<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>Identify the ATS before optimizing. Workday jobs appear at myworkdayjobs.com. Greenhouse at boards.greenhouse.io. Lever at jobs.lever.co. iCIMS often shows icims.com in the portal URL or form structure.<\/p>\n<h2>The &#8220;Mirror the JD&#8221; Framework: 11 ChatGPT Prompts for ATS Optimization<\/h2>\n<p>These 11 frameworks move from simple keyword alignment to full resume restructuring. Run them in order \u2014 later frameworks build on earlier output.<\/p>\n<h3>Frameworks 1\u20134: Keyword Alignment<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Framework 1 \u2014 JD Mirror:<\/strong> &#8220;Here is a job description: [paste JD]. Here is my current bullet point: [paste it]. Rewrite the bullet using the JD&#8217;s exact phrases while keeping my actual experience accurate. No markdown formatting.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Framework 2 \u2014 Skills Gap Audit:<\/strong> &#8220;Compare this job description [paste JD] against this skills section [paste yours]. List every required skill from the JD missing from my resume, and suggest where to add each one.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Framework 3 \u2014 Title Alignment:<\/strong> &#8220;The job title in this posting is [exact title]. My resume title reads [your title]. Rewrite my title line to match the JD&#8217;s preferred phrasing without misrepresenting my seniority level.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Framework 4 \u2014 Keyword Density Pass:<\/strong> &#8220;This job description uses &#8216;cross-functional collaboration&#8217; four times. Rewrite these three bullet points to each include that phrase once, naturally, without repeating the surrounding sentence structure.&#8221;<\/p>\n<div style=\"background:#d4edda;border-left:4px solid #28a745;padding:14px 18px;margin:20px 0;border-radius:4px;\">\n<p style=\"margin:0;font-weight:700;color:#155724;\">Pro Tip<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin:8px 0 0;color:#333;\">After Framework 1, run results through Jobscan&#8217;s keyword matcher before moving to Framework 3 or 4. GPT-4o occasionally paraphrases instead of mirroring \u2014 Jobscan catches when you&#8217;re close but not exact on the keywords that ATS weights most heavily.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h3>Frameworks 5\u20138: Bullet Point Rewriting<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Framework 5 \u2014 STAR to ATS:<\/strong> &#8220;Convert this STAR-format achievement [paste it] into three concise bullet points, each under 20 words, using the action verbs from this JD: [paste JD verbs]. Plain text only.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Framework 6 \u2014 Achievement Reframe:<\/strong> &#8220;I completed a project that shipped on time with no recorded metrics. Reframe this into one specific bullet that implies precision and ownership without fabricating numbers I don&#8217;t have.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Framework 7 \u2014 Verb Modernization:<\/strong> &#8220;List all action verbs in this experience section [paste]. Flag weak or overused verbs (helped, worked on, responsible for) and suggest replacements drawn from this JD&#8217;s own language.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Framework 8 \u2014 Density Optimizer:<\/strong> &#8220;This Greenhouse posting uses these keywords most frequently: [list them]. I have a 280-word experience section [paste it]. Rewrite it to include each keyword at least once without making it sound keyword-stuffed.&#8221;<\/p>\n<h3>Frameworks 9\u201311: Full Section Rewrites<\/h3>\n<p><strong>Framework 9 \u2014 Skills Section for Lever:<\/strong> &#8220;Lever weights skills sections heavily. Create a skills section using exactly the skill labels from this JD [paste skills list], in the same order they appear, matching casing precisely.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Framework 10 \u2014 Summary Statement:<\/strong> &#8220;Write a 3-sentence professional summary targeting this Workday posting [paste JD]. Include the exact job title, two keyword phrases from the JD, and one accomplishment I can verify with data I actually have: [state it].&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Framework 11 \u2014 iCIMS Section Labels:<\/strong> &#8220;Rename all custom sections in this resume to standard iCIMS labels: &#8216;Professional History&#8217; \u2192 &#8216;Experience&#8217;, &#8216;Core Competencies&#8217; \u2192 &#8216;Skills&#8217;, &#8216;Academic Background&#8217; \u2192 &#8216;Education&#8217;. Flag any remaining non-standard section names.&#8221;<\/p>\n<figure style=\"margin:24px 0;text-align:center;\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/chatgpt-resume-prompts-ats-2026-internal-2-hero.jpg\" alt=\"How Workday, Greenhouse, Lever, and iCIMS Parse Resumes Differently\" style=\"max-width:100%;height:auto;border-radius:8px;\" loading=\"lazy\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<h2>Format-First: What ATS Parsers Can&#8217;t Read<\/h2>\n<p>The best keywords won&#8217;t save a resume that ATS can&#8217;t parse. Formatting errors cause silent rejections \u2014 the resume is received but scored as a blank document.<\/p>\n<p>ATS platforms read text left to right, top to bottom. Tables break this flow. A two-column layout splits your job title into one field and your company name into another, producing garbled output in the parsed record.<\/p>\n<p>Text boxes, headers, footers, and graphics are invisible to most parsers. Contact information placed in a header text box literally disappears from Lever&#8217;s extracted fields.<\/p>\n<div style=\"background:#d4edda;border-left:4px solid #28a745;padding:14px 18px;margin:20px 0;border-radius:4px;\">\n<p style=\"margin:0;font-weight:700;color:#155724;\">Pro Tip<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin:8px 0 0;color:#333;\">Add this to every formatting prompt: &#8220;Output plain bullet-point format only. No tables, no columns, no bold or italic markers, no text boxes. Use standard section labels: Experience, Education, Skills, Summary.&#8221; This single instruction prevents the most common ATS parsing failures across Workday, Greenhouse, Lever, and iCIMS.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2>ChatGPT vs Claude vs Gemini for ATS Resume Work<\/h2>\n<p>Each major AI model has different strengths for resume prompting. Here&#8217;s what practitioner testing and community reports consistently show about GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Gemini 2.0.<\/p>\n<table style=\"width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;margin:20px 0;\">\n<thead>\n<tr style=\"background:#002060;color:white;\">\n<th style=\"padding:10px 12px;text-align:left;font-weight:600;\">Model<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:10px 12px;text-align:left;font-weight:600;\">Keyword Mirroring<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:10px 12px;text-align:left;font-weight:600;\">Default Formatting<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding:10px 12px;text-align:left;font-weight:600;\">Best Use Case<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8f9fa;\">\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;font-weight:600;\">GPT-4o (<a href=\"https:\/\/openai.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener nofollow external noreferrer\" data-wpel-link=\"external\">OpenAI<\/a>)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Excellent \u2014 mirrors JD phrasing precisely<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Defaults to markdown; needs explicit &#8220;no markdown&#8221; instruction<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Keyword density + JD mirroring (Frameworks 1, 4, 8)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;font-weight:600;\">Claude Sonnet 4.6<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Good \u2014 occasionally paraphrases vs mirrors<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Cleaner plain text by default; fewer formatting artifacts<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Bullet rewriting + summary statements (Frameworks 5, 6, 10)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr style=\"background:#f8f9fa;\">\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;font-weight:600;\">Gemini 2.0 (Google)<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Moderate \u2014 stronger on Google-specific postings<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Inconsistent; sometimes inserts headers or numbered lists<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding:9px 12px;border-bottom:1px solid #dee2e6;\">Google, YouTube, or Google Cloud job applications<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>GPT-4o wins on keyword precision when given a JD to mirror. Claude Sonnet 4.6 produces the cleanest ATS-safe output without extra formatting cleanup steps. Gemini 2.0 shows a practical edge on Google and YouTube applications \u2014 its training likely includes heavy exposure to Google&#8217;s own job description structures.<\/p>\n<blockquote style=\"border-left:4px solid #ccc;margin:20px 0;padding:12px 20px;background:#f9f9f9;font-style:italic;color:#555;\">\n<p>&#8220;Optimize your application materials for the specific ATS the employer uses. Different systems process resume content differently, and what works for one system may not work for another.&#8221;<\/p>\n<footer style=\"margin-top:8px;font-style:normal;font-size:0.9em;color:#777;\">\u2014 Per Jobscan&#8217;s ATS Optimization Guide (jobscan.co)<\/footer>\n<\/blockquote>\n<figure style=\"margin:24px 0;text-align:center;\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/chatgpt-resume-prompts-ats-2026-internal-3-hero.jpg\" alt=\"The &quot;Mirror the JD&quot; Framework: 11 ChatGPT Prompts for ATS Optimization\" style=\"max-width:100%;height:auto;border-radius:8px;\" loading=\"lazy\" title=\"\"><\/figure>\n<h2>Jobscan vs Resume Worded: Verifying ATS Keyword Gaps<\/h2>\n<p>After running your ChatGPT prompt frameworks, verify the output. Two tools lead ATS keyword verification: Jobscan and Resume Worded.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Jobscan<\/strong> compares your resume against a specific job posting and returns a keyword match percentage, hard skills coverage rate, and ATS compatibility score. It identifies which exact keywords are still missing after your GPT-4o rewrite.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Resume Worded<\/strong> focuses on impact language and achievement clarity, with ATS compatibility as a secondary feature. It&#8217;s better suited to Framework 6 (Achievement Reframe) than to strict keyword gap analysis.<\/p>\n<p>The recommended workflow: run Frameworks 1\u20134 in GPT-4o \u2192 paste result into Jobscan \u2192 note remaining keyword gaps \u2192 run Framework 8 targeting those gaps \u2192 verify again in Jobscan before submitting.<\/p>\n<div style=\"background:#d4edda;border-left:4px solid #28a745;padding:14px 18px;margin:20px 0;border-radius:4px;\">\n<p style=\"margin:0;font-weight:700;color:#155724;\">Pro Tip<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin:8px 0 0;color:#333;\">Jobscan&#8217;s free tier covers limited scans. Maximize them by verifying only your final draft \u2014 not each intermediate GPT-4o iteration. Run Frameworks 1 through 8 in one session, then scan the finished result once. Jobscan&#8217;s paid tier ($49\/month) unlocks unlimited scans, which is cost-effective if you&#8217;re actively applying to 10 or more roles.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div style=\"background:#e8f0fe;border-left:4px solid #4285f4;padding:16px 20px;margin:28px 0;border-radius:4px;\">\n<p style=\"margin:0 0 8px;color:#1a73e8;font-size:0.9em;font-weight:700;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:0.05em;\">Key Takeaway<\/p>\n<ul style=\"margin:0;padding-left:20px;color:#333;\">\n<li style=\"margin-bottom:6px;\">ATS-optimized prompts require the actual JD pasted in \u2014 without it, ChatGPT can&#8217;t mirror the specific keywords that Workday and Greenhouse weight most heavily<\/li>\n<li style=\"margin-bottom:6px;\">Workday, Greenhouse, Lever, and iCIMS each parse differently; identify the platform from the application URL before choosing your framework set<\/li>\n<li style=\"margin-bottom:6px;\">GPT-4o wins on keyword density precision; Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins on clean ATS-safe formatting; Gemini 2.0 edges ahead on Google job postings<\/li>\n<li style=\"margin-bottom:0;\">Always verify with Jobscan after GPT-4o rewrites \u2014 it catches paraphrasing failures that feel right but miss the ATS scoring threshold<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<h2>FAQ: ChatGPT Resume Prompts for ATS<\/h2>\n<h3>Does ChatGPT actually improve ATS pass rates?<\/h3>\n<p>Per Google Search Central guidance, yes, when given the right prompts. The key is providing the job description and asking ChatGPT to mirror specific phrases rather than generically &#8220;improve&#8221; the resume. GPT-4o is particularly strong at exact-phrase keyword alignment when explicitly instructed.<\/p>\n<h3>Which ATS requires the most specific prompt strategy?<\/h3>\n<p>iCIMS requires the most formatting precision. It parses resumes section by section and records blank fields when section labels are non-standard. Always run Framework 11 (iCIMS Section Labels) before uploading to any iCIMS-powered application portal.<\/p>\n<h3>Can Claude replace ChatGPT for resume prompting?<\/h3>\n<p>For bullet rewriting and summary statements, Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the better choice \u2014 it produces cleaner plain text without markdown cleanup steps. For strict keyword mirroring tasks, GPT-4o remains stronger. Use both: GPT-4o for Frameworks 1, 4, 8; Claude for Frameworks 5, 6, 10.<\/p>\n<h3>Does Gemini 2.0 work for resume optimization?<\/h3>\n<p>Gemini 2.0 works adequately for most applications. It shows a practical edge on Google, YouTube, and Google Cloud job postings. For Workday or Greenhouse applications, GPT-4o remains the stronger tool for keyword precision.<\/p>\n<h3>How do I identify which ATS a company is using?<\/h3>\n<p>Check the application portal URL. Workday appears at myworkdayjobs.com. Greenhouse at boards.greenhouse.io. Lever at jobs.lever.co. iCIMS often embeds its URL or shows its interface style on employer-branded portals \u2014 look for icims.com in the form action URLs.<\/p>\n<h3>Is Jobscan worth paying for over Resume Worded?<\/h3>\n<p>For strict ATS keyword gap analysis, Jobscan is the stronger tool. Resume Worded is better for achievement clarity and impact framing. If you&#8217;re actively applying to multiple roles, Jobscan&#8217;s paid tier ($49\/month) gives unlimited scans \u2014 cost-effective when running Framework iterations across 10 or more applications.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Generic ChatGPT resume prompts get resumes rejected by Applicant Tracking Systems before a human ever sees them. The problem isn&#8217;t the AI \u2014 it&#8217;s the prompt.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":265543,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","rank_math_title":"","rank_math_description":"","rank_math_focus_keyword":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[4663],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-265542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","et-has-post-format-content","et_post_format-et-post-format-standard"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265542","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=265542"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265542\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":265548,"href":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265542\/revisions\/265548"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/265543"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=265542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=265542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/designcopy.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=265542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}