linkedin-post ยท diff
git:20260504.0d54b6b to git:20260808.7dfb5c7
161 added, 22 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: linkedin-post
- description: Write a high-performing LinkedIn post in the user's brand voice using Hook-Story-Offer (Alex Hormozi, $100M Offers) and the Curiosity Gap hook method (George Loewenstein). Every post starts by selecting a named hook formula - specific number + surprising result, contrarian statement, personal confession, direct challenge, or before/after. Use when the user asks for a LinkedIn post, LinkedIn update, LinkedIn content, "post for LinkedIn", thought-leadership post, founder post, or short professional social content. Reads brand voice and ICP from knowledge/ so output sounds like the company, not generic AI.
- reads:
- - knowledge/brand/voice.md
- - knowledge/icp/personas.md
- - knowledge/markets/positioning.md
- - knowledge/content-library/
- writes:
- - output/linkedin-post/
+ description: Write a high-performing LinkedIn post in the user's brand voice using Hook-Story-Offer (Russell Brunson) and the Curiosity Gap hook method (George Loewenstein). Every post starts by selecting a named hook formula - specific number + surprising result, contrarian statement, personal confession, direct challenge, or before/after. Use when the user asks for a LinkedIn post, LinkedIn update, LinkedIn content, "post for LinkedIn", thought-leadership post, founder post, or short professional social content. Reads brand voice and ICP from knowledge/ so output sounds like the company, not generic AI. For long-form opinion pieces, see thought-leadership-writer. For the monthly posting plan, see social-calendar. For turning one asset into many posts, see content-repurposer.
+ metadata:
+ grounded_in:
+ - "Hook-Story-Offer - Russell Brunson"
+ - "Curiosity Gap - George Loewenstein"
+ reads:
+ - knowledge/brand/voice.md
+ - knowledge/icp/personas.md
+ - knowledge/markets/positioning.md
+ - knowledge/services/
+ - knowledge/content-library/case-studies/
+ - knowledge/content-library/
+ writes:
+ - output/linkedin-post/
---
# linkedin-post
- Writes LinkedIn posts that get read, saved, and reshared. Applies the Hook-Story-Offer structure (Alex Hormozi) with the Curiosity Gap hook method (George Loewenstein). Every post creates a specific information gap in the hook, closes it in the story, and ends with one clear action.
+ Writes LinkedIn posts that get read, saved, and reshared. Applies the Hook-Story-Offer structure (Russell Brunson) with the Curiosity Gap hook method (George Loewenstein). Every post creates a specific information gap in the hook, closes it in the story, and ends with one clear action.
## Framework: Hook-Story-Offer + Curiosity Gap
- ### Hook-Story-Offer (Alex Hormozi)
+ ### Hook-Story-Offer (Russell Brunson)
+
+ Brunson's sequence, used here as three stages with a job, a failure mode and a test each. Write
+ them in this order and do not start the story before the hook is settled.
+
+ | Stage | Its one job | It has failed when | The test to run |
+ |---|---|---|---|
+ | **Hook** | Buy the click on "see more" | The reader can scroll past without wondering anything | Cover everything but line 1. Is there still a question in the reader's head? |
+ | **Story** | Earn trust by closing the gap the hook opened | It restates the hook at greater length, or answers a different question | Read the hook, then the last line of the story. Did the promise get paid? |
+ | **Offer** | Convert attention into one action | It ends with "thoughts?" and nothing else | Underline the imperative verb. If there is no verb, there is no offer |
+
**HOOK**: stop the scroll. Create a pattern interrupt. The hook must create enough curiosity or pain recognition that the reader clicks "see more." The hook fails if someone can scroll past without wondering what comes next.
**STORY**: make the hook real. Provide context, the journey, the insight. This is where trust is built. Show, don't tell. Specific details, numbers, named situations.
**OFFER**: what should the reader DO? The offer can be: click a link, follow, save the post, reply with a word, or believe something new. One action only. Low friction. "What do you think?" is not an offer - it is an afterthought.
Note: "offer" in LinkedIn context is NOT always a sales pitch. The offer is whatever action you want the reader to take - including "bookmark this framework" or "reconsider this belief."
+ **Match the offer to the goal.** Pick from this table rather than defaulting to a link.
+
+ | Goal | Offer to use | Offer to avoid | Reason |
+ |---|---|---|---|
+ | Build authority | "Save this" or "steal this checklist" | An external link | A save is a low-friction commitment that signals value |
+ | Generate leads | One link, named plainly | A vague "DM me" | The reader should know exactly what is on the other side |
+ | Start a conversation | A specific question with a constrained answer | "What do you think?" | An open question is work, a constrained one is a reply |
+ | Recruit | "Reply with the word [X]" | "Apply here" | Lower the first step, qualify in the DM |
+ | Announce | One link plus one sentence on who it is for | Three links | Split attention halves both |
+
### Curiosity Gap Hook Method (George Loewenstein)
+
+ Loewenstein's information-gap account of curiosity: curiosity is the feeling of a gap between
+ what you know and what you want to know, and it is strongest when you know just enough to see
+ exactly what is missing. A hook that tells you nothing creates no gap, and a hook that tells you
+ everything closes it before you scroll.
+
Best LinkedIn hooks create a specific information gap between what the reader knows and what the post promises to reveal. The gap must be:
- Specific (not vague) - "one change" beats "some changes"
- Closeable only by reading on - the answer cannot be guessed
- Relevant to the reader's world - they must care about closing the gap
+ **Score the hook before writing anything else.** Three axes, 0 to 2 each.
+
+ | Axis | 0 | 1 | 2 |
+ |---|---|---|---|
+ | Specificity | Names a topic | Names a category of answer | Names one thing, countable or singular |
+ | Closeability | The answer is guessable from the hook | Partly guessable | Only the post can answer it |
+ | Relevance | Interesting to anyone | Interesting to the industry | Interesting to this named persona this week |
+
+ **Threshold: ship at 5 or 6. At 4, rewrite the hook. At 3 or below, the problem is the angle,
+ not the wording, so go back to step 3 and pick a different formula.** Never rewrite a 3 into a 5
+ by adding adjectives, that produces clickbait, which is a gap the story cannot pay off.
+
Hook quality test: does the hook create a specific gap the reader needs to close? If someone can guess the answer from the hook alone, it is not a gap - it is a headline.
### The 5 Hook Formulas
Pick one before writing. Name it in the process.
1. **Specific number + surprising result**: "I made one change to our onboarding flow. Trial-to-paid went from 19% to 29%." Gap: what was the change?
2. **Contrarian statement + no explanation yet**: "Cold outreach is dead. Here's what replaced it." Gap: what replaced it?
3. **Personal confession + open loop**: "I was wrong about [belief]. Here's what changed my mind." Gap: what changed their mind?
4. **Direct challenge**: "Most [audience] make this mistake. Are you?" Gap: what is the mistake?
5. **Before/after without the how**: "6 months ago: 8 demo requests/month. Today: 47. Here's what changed." Gap: what changed?
## When to use
- "Write a LinkedIn post about X"
- "Draft a founder post on Y"
- "Give me 3 LinkedIn variants for our launch"
- "Turn this article into a LinkedIn post"
## Inputs needed
- **Topic, angle, or source material** (required)
- **Goal**: drive traffic, build authority, generate leads, recruit, announce (default: build authority)
- **Author voice**: founder, CMO, generic company (default: company)
- **CTA**: comment, click link, DM, none (optional)
## Process
- 1. **Load context.** Read `knowledge/brand/voice.md`. If missing, stop and tell the user to run `/onboard --brand`.
+ 1. **Load context.** Read `knowledge/brand/voice.md`. If missing, stop and tell the user to run `/brand-context`.
2. **Read 3-5 high-performing past posts** from `knowledge/content-library/` if they exist. Mirror cadence and rhythm, not topic.
3. **Select a hook formula.** Pick one of the 5 formulas. Name it explicitly before writing. Do not skip this step.
```
Hook formula selected: [formula name]
Gap this hook creates: [one sentence - what does the reader not know yet?]
+ Gap score: specificity _/2 closeability _/2 relevance _/2 = _/6
```
+ If the score is below 5, do not proceed. Rewrite at 4, change formula at 3 or below.
+
4. **Write the hook.** First line decides everything. Rules:
- Under 12 words
- Specific, not generic
- Creates a gap that can only be closed by reading on
- No "Excited to share", no "I'm thrilled", no questions that can be answered yes/no without thinking
- Apply the curiosity gap quality check: is the gap specific? Is it closeable? Will the reader care?
5. **Write the story.** 3-7 short paragraphs using Hook-Story-Offer structure:
- Show, don't tell. Specific details. Numbers. Named situations.
- One idea per paragraph. Line breaks are generous.
- The story closes the gap created by the hook. If reading the story does not satisfy the hook's promise, rewrite one of them.
- Bullets only if the structure is a list. Avoid emojis unless `knowledge/brand/voice.md` says they are part of the voice.
6. **Write the offer.** One line. One action. Low friction.
- State what specific action you want: save, comment, follow, click, reply with a word
- "What do you think?" alone is not an offer - add a specific action alongside or instead
- Match friction to goal: if the goal is lead gen, a link is fine. If the goal is authority, "save this" is better.
- 7. **Self-check** before showing:
- - Named hook formula used and gap is clearly created in the hook
- - Hook under 12 words
- - Story closes the gap from the hook
- - Offer is one specific, low-friction action
- - No em dashes
- - No corporate phrases ("leverage", "unlock", "game-changer", "in today's fast-paced world")
- - 80-220 words total (LinkedIn cuts off around 210 words on mobile)
- - Voice matches `knowledge/brand/voice.md`
- - One clear takeaway
+ 7. **Self-check** before showing. Every item is checkable by counting or quoting the draft.
+ Framework:
+ - The hook formula name and the gap score are both written in the output frontmatter
+ - Gap score is 5 or 6. If it is 4 or lower, the post is not finished
+ - Hook is 12 words or fewer. Count them
+ - The sentence in the story that closes the hook's gap can be quoted. Quote it
+ - Exactly one imperative verb appears in the offer. Count them
+ - The offer matches the row for this post's goal in the offer table
+
+ Sourcing:
+ - Every number in the post appears in `knowledge/content-library/case-studies/` or in the
+ user's brief. List each number and its source
+ - If a number could not be sourced, hook formula 1 and 5 were not used, and the draft carries
+ `[NEEDS INPUT: <what>]` rather than a placeholder figure
+ - No customer, employer or partner is named unless the user named them in this conversation
+
+ Format:
+ - 80-220 words total. Count them
+ - Zero em dashes and zero en dashes
+ - Zero occurrences of: leverage, unlock, game-changer, "in today's fast-paced world",
+ "excited to share", "thrilled to announce"
+ - 2 hashtags or fewer, all lowercase, at the end
+ - Every phrase in the brand's "avoids" list appears zero times
+
8. **Save** to `output/linkedin-post/<DD-MM-YYYY>-<slug>.md` with frontmatter:
```yaml
---
format: linkedin-post
topic: <topic>
author: <founder|cmo|company>
goal: <goal>
hook-formula: <formula name>
+ gap-score: <n>/6
words: <count>
created: DD-MM-YYYY
---
```
9. **Offer 2 hook variants** unless the user only wanted one. The hook is the highest-leverage edit point - a different hook formula on the same content can double or halve performance.
## Format guardrails
- 80-220 words total
- First line = hook (the only line guaranteed to be seen before "see more")
- Lines 2-3 must earn the click to "see more"
- No more than 2 hashtags, end of post, lowercase, niche-specific (skip generic ones like #marketing)
- Tag people only if the user explicitly named them
## Hook formula reference (quick pick)
| Situation | Best formula |
|---|---|
| You have a specific metric result | Formula 1: Specific number + surprising result |
| You want to challenge a common belief | Formula 2: Contrarian statement |
| You changed your own mind about something | Formula 3: Personal confession |
| You see a widespread mistake | Formula 4: Direct challenge |
| You have a transformation story | Formula 5: Before/after without the how |
## Rules
- Never skip the hook formula selection. Naming the formula is a forcing function - it prevents generic hooks.
- - Never invent stats, customer quotes, or product capabilities. Pull from `knowledge/services/` and `knowledge/content-library/case-studies/` only.
+ - Never invent stats, customer quotes, or product capabilities. Pull from `knowledge/services/`
+ and `knowledge/content-library/case-studies/` only, both of which step 1 loads.
+ - **If the post will carry a metric, open `knowledge/content-library/case-studies/` and confirm it
+ exists there. If it does not, use hook formula 2, 3 or 4 - never 1 or 5.** Those two formulas are
+ built around a specific number, so choosing them without one forces invention.
- The offer must be specific. "Let me know your thoughts" is vague. "Comment with the one thing you'd add" is specific.
- If the user wants to share a competitor opinion, flag risk and ask before publishing.
- The gap created in the hook must be closed in the body. If the post does not answer what the hook implied, the reader feels tricked - they will not follow or save.
+
+ ## Stop conditions
+
+ Do not publish, and say which condition fired.
+
+ 1. **The gap score is 4 or below after two rewrites.** The angle is the problem. Tell the user
+ the post has no gap worth opening and ask for a sharper story or a real result.
+ 2. **The post needs a metric and no metric exists in `knowledge/` or the brief.** Never invent
+ one. Switch to hook formula 2, 3 or 4, or emit `[NEEDS INPUT: the actual number]` and stop.
+ 3. **The post names a customer, employer, competitor or individual the user did not name.**
+ Remove the name or ask. A named competitor claim on LinkedIn is public, permanent and
+ attributable to a person.
+ 4. **The post is written for a named executive and the user has not confirmed the executive
+ holds this view.** Draft it, mark it `[APPROVAL NEEDED: <name>]`, do not present it as ready.
+ 5. **The story and the hook answer different questions and neither can be moved.** Two posts,
+ not one. Say so.
+
+ ## Warning signs in your own draft
+
+ Ranked worst first. The first three block publication.
+
+ 1. A number, percentage or result you cannot trace to a file or the brief. Blocker.
+ 2. A named person or company the user did not supply. Blocker.
+ 3. A claim about a competitor stated as fact. Blocker, route to the user.
+ 4. The hook could open a post on any topic in the industry. It scores 0 on relevance, rewrite.
+ 5. The story restates the hook rather than paying it off. The reader gets the feeling of being
+ sold a click, and this is the single most reliable way to lose followers.
+ 6. The offer is "thoughts?" or "agree?". No verb, no action.
+ 7. Over 220 words, so the first three lines are carrying a post most readers will never expand.
+ 8. Emojis or hashtags added because posts usually have them, rather than because
+ `knowledge/brand/voice.md` says so.
+
+ ## Related skills
+
+ - `/thought-leadership-writer` when the idea needs 1200 words and a defended thesis, not a post
+ - `/content-repurposer` to turn one article, webinar or case study into a run of posts
+ - `/social-calendar` for the posting plan and pillar mix this post should slot into
+ - `/content-writer` for the same idea in a different format, such as an email or blog intro
+ - `/copy-review` to grade a post the user already drafted rather than writing a new one
+ - `/case-study-writer` when the post keeps needing a result that has not been documented yet
+ - `/ab-copy-writer` when two hooks are both credible and the choice should be tested
+ - `/brand-context` first, whenever `knowledge/brand/voice.md` does not exist yet
+ - `/kpi-review` to check afterwards whether this format is actually working for the account
+
+ ## What this skill cannot know
+
+ These are real limitations of this skill. Ask the user or emit `[NEEDS INPUT: <what>]` rather
+ than filling them in.
+
+ 1. **Whether LinkedIn's current behaviour matches the defaults in this file.** Truncation point,
+ link handling, hashtag treatment and feed ranking all change without notice, and this skill
+ has no live view of the platform. Check in the composer before shipping anything that depends
+ on a number here.
+ 2. **What actually performs on this specific account.** Follower composition beats every general
+ rule. If `knowledge/learnings.md` or the account's analytics disagree with this file, the
+ account data wins.
+ 3. **Whether the named author agrees with the post.** A founder byline is a public statement by a
+ real person. Their approval is not something this skill can infer from the brand voice file.
+ 4. **Whether a customer, partner or employer has agreed to be mentioned.** Consent lives in a
+ contract or a thread, not in `knowledge/`.
+
+ ## Platform figures are not facts
+
+ Any cadence, character count, best-day, format spec or benchmark in this skill is a starting
+ default recorded at authoring time, not a published platform rule. Two obligations:
+
+ 1. **Verify current specs in the platform itself before shipping** anything that depends on them.
+ 2. **This account's own historical data always wins.** Where `knowledge/learnings.md` or the
+ team's analytics contradict a default here, follow the data and say so in the output.
+
+ Never present a default from this file to a client as though the platform published it. That is
+ the claim their in-house specialist corrects in the meeting, and the correction discredits
+ everything else in the document.