[prachi-phatak]

Pull Request

📌 Feature: Added Dynamic Resume Completion Progress

Closes #34

---

📝 Description

This PR implements a dynamic Resume Completion Progress feature in Resume Studio. The progress bar updates in real time based on completed resume sections and highlights missing sections to help users build a complete resume.

✨ Changes Made

• Added Resume Completion progress bar
• Progress updates automatically when user fills sections
• Displays missing resume sections
• Added validation for:
  • Name
  • Email
  • Phone
  • Education
  • Experience
  • Projects
  • Skills
• Progress percentage updates in real time

---

🚀 Type of Change

• New feature

---

🧪 Testing

• Tested locally
• Progress updates dynamically
• Responsive UI verified

---

📸 Screenshots

---

✅ Checklist

• My code follows the project's coding style.
• I have performed a self-review of my code.
• I have tested my changes locally.
• My changes do not introduce new warnings or errors.

[vercel]

@prachi-phatak is attempting to deploy a commit to the Pari's projects Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[prachi-phatak]

Hi , I am a contributor in ECSoC26. Will this contribution be eligible for ECSoC26 points? Thank you!

[pari-28]

Hi @prachi-phatak,

Thank you for your contribution! The Resume Completion Progress feature is a useful addition and aligns well with the goals of Resume Studio.

Before this PR can be merged, I'd like to request a few changes:

The current branch does not pass the lint and build checks. Please resolve these issues and ensure all CI checks pass.
There appear to be duplicated sections of code in ResumeStudio.tsx (such as repeated checks declarations and duplicated logic). Please clean up any merge artifacts or redundant code before resubmitting.
This PR also modifies package.json and package-lock.json. Since this feature does not appear to require additional dependencies, please remove any unnecessary package changes or explain why they are required.
If possible, try to reuse existing validation logic where appropriate instead of duplicating similar checks.

Once these points are addressed, I'll be happy to review the updated implementation again.