First to me, hiring from a job posting's crop of CVs is going at it the hard way: of course you get 100s of responses. If you have alternatives available: network, recruiter, user groups, trade show, anything really, then use that at least in addition to random CVs (which then are backup).

Second, I would suggest rounding up a few colleagues who can spend 20 seconds per CV. If 100s of these CVs all look basically the same - roughly impossible to judge a fit - then all these have failed already. Hopefully you are left with more interesting looking CVs which appear to actually say something (beyond keyword slop). A resume has one job. It shouldn't take deep reading to set aside 90% of them.

Which leads us to resume intake software. I understand why HR depts use resume intake software - they don't have the competence to read them. But normally the technical team does have the competence - and should be able to tell quickly keyword slop from not keyword slop. (AI will mess that up - but I don't think we are there yet.)

Some of the common resume formats out there fail us all 100%. They are not useful anymore. I appreciate candidates who notice what the resume is there for.