I'd much rather see less buzzwords and more content. Very few resumes actually contain job descriptions where I can tell what the person actually worked on. I care much less about what language you worked in than what you actually accomplished and whether you have strong CS fundamentals.
I'm also working on a resume analyzer and trying to use it to predict candidate success. One feature that has showed up as consistently being a predictor of a poor candidate is high keyword saturation (# of languages, OSs, frameworks etc divided by total resume length).
Unfortunately, CV's talk about skills and experience people have, while the person I want to hire is someone with higher intelligence and solid foundation who can pick up new things fast. I have not observed any correlation (positive or negative) between the number of skills people list and pure intelligence.
Also, in the U.S. at least, the resume exists in conjunction with the cover letter. (Although online applications may be impacting this.) The resume is what. The cover letter is "I'm very/genuinely interested, and here is -- briefly -- how you might/should interpret my application including the experience the resume conveys."
You should hope to catch the reader's attention in 15 seconds or less, and expect them to initially spend no more than a minute -- two at the most -- on the combination. Hopefully, you make it to round two, where they spend more time on the content. More hopefully, you have a contact and/or reference of some sort, so that this consideration happens initially.
P.S. I guess I'm not considering the crazy, automated keyword matching and "AI" (cough) that goes on, these days. I think the best way past that is, again, to have a contact in or close to the hiring department, so that an inquiry about you is generated internally to HR (where, inevitably, your formal application has to go -- for "established" companies, at least).