Writes LinkedIn posts in the user's own voice, from a real observation or earned insight — not engagement-bait or growth-hacking templates. Use when drafting a LinkedIn post, turning a work observation or lesson into a post, or reviewing a LinkedIn draft for tone. Normally invoked by `writing-system` once LinkedIn is the chosen platform, but works standalone too. Companion skill: `x-thread-writer`, for the same voice on X/Twitter.
Scanned 9/1/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add alunadev/ald-skills --skill linkedin-post-writer --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Linkedin Post Writer?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/alunadev-linkedin-post-writer)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: linkedin-post-writer
description: >
Writes LinkedIn posts in the user's own voice, from a real observation or earned insight —
not engagement-bait or growth-hacking templates. Use when drafting a LinkedIn post, turning
a work observation or lesson into a post, or reviewing a LinkedIn draft for tone. Normally
invoked by `writing-system` once LinkedIn is the chosen platform, but works standalone too.
Companion skill: `x-thread-writer`, for the same voice on X/Twitter.
---
# LinkedIn Post Writer
## Core Philosophy
One post is one observation or one earned insight — never a manufactured hook chasing
virality. If you don't have a real thing that happened, don't post today.
No growth-hacking. No swipe files, no "top 1% craftsmanship" hour-counting, no funnel
language (ToF/MoF/BoF), no fabricated stats, no "link in comments" bait. If a post needs a
trick to work, the observation underneath it isn't strong enough yet — find a better one
instead of engineering around a weak one.
## Two Formats
### The Nota (default — use this for most posts)
Short, dated, one observation, no title needed. Something ordinary or annoying happened →
write it the same day, with the numbers actually counted (how many, how long, how much) →
connect it to one principle, not two. 3 short paragraphs is plenty. The bar for "worth
posting" is lower than it feels — mundane-but-specific beats impressive-but-vague.
### The Insight Post (occasional — for a real earned lesson)
```
Line 1 (opening): States the actual claim. Plain, not curiosity-gap.
Line 2: blank — forces the opening line to stand alone before "see more" truncation
Lines 3-6 (context): why this came up, briefly
Lines 7-10 (insight): the core idea, with one concrete number or artifact
Lines 11-13 (takeaway): what someone should do or think differently
Last line: one genuine question you actually want answered — not "agree?" or "thoughts?"
```
150-400 words. Longer posts bury the insight. Comments matter more than likes on this
platform, so the closing question should be one you'd actually want to discuss, not
engagement filler.
## Platform Mechanics (facts, not voice)
- Roughly the first 2-3 lines show before the "see more" truncation on mobile — the opening
line has to work standalone, assume nothing after it gets read.
- One CTA maximum, and it should point at something real: a question, an artifact, a specific
next step. Never stack "follow + repost + comment + subscribe."
## Voice Rules (non-negotiable)
- **No "No es X. Es Y." / "not X, but Y" constructions** — including in the opening line.
Use an earned contrast instead: "in theory X, in practice Y, so Z" — built from what
actually happened, not from negating a strawman.
- **No em dashes.**
- **No hype vocabulary**: "dive into", "unlock", "elevate", "unleash", "next-gen",
"game-changer", "synergy", "robust", "leverage", "landscape".
- **No urgency, scarcity, or exclusivity devices.** Nothing engineered to stop the reader
from thinking — "before it's too late", "only X spots", fake countdowns.
- **No claim you couldn't defend if challenged directly.** If you wouldn't say it to someone
who knows the details, don't post it.
- **A counted number beats a superlative.** "Cut review time from 3 days to 4 hours" — not
"significantly faster."
- **Short paragraphs.** 1-3 lines. This is read on a phone.
- **Surface the obvious objection instead of hiding it.** If there's a real pushback to what
you're claiming, name it in the post — it reads as more credible, not less.
- **Plain opening line beats a formula.** No "the secret nobody tells you about X", no
fabricated urgency in the first line. State the claim.
## Before Publishing
- [ ] Real observation or earned insight — not a topic picked because it "performs"
- [ ] Grep your own draft for "no es… es" / "not X, but Y" — zero hits, including the opening
line
- [ ] Zero em dashes
- [ ] Zero hype words from the banned list above
- [ ] One CTA max, and it's specific — not generic engagement bait
- [ ] Every number in the post is real and counted, not estimated for effect
- [ ] If there's an obvious objection to the claim, it's in the post
## See Also
- `writing-system` — the orchestrator: idea capture and platform selection happen there;
this skill is what it hands off to once LinkedIn is the chosen platform.
- `x-thread-writer` — same voice rules, adapted for X/Twitter's shorter, faster format.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!