INLINECODE0
INLINECODE1
LinkedIn Post Engine
Overview
This skill helps you create strong LinkedIn posts that feel human, useful, and credible.
It combines:
- - proven hook frameworks,
- clear narrative structures,
- proof-first writing,
- and practical CTA design.
Keywords: linkedin, thought leadership, personal brand, founder posts, b2b content, storytelling, case study, hooks, engagement, authority
Process Workflow
Phase 1: Audience + Positioning (CRITICAL)
Before writing, define:
- 1. Audience — Who is this for? (founders, recruiters, engineers, operators, marketers, sales leaders, etc.)
- Goal — Reach, authority, leads, hiring, trust, replies, profile visits?
- Core insight — What is the one thing worth remembering?
- Proof — What makes this believable (numbers, before/after, constraints, mistakes, outcomes)?
If proof is missing, use placeholders like [X%], [Y hours] and request exact values.
Phase 2: Structure + Hook Selection
Choose a format first, then write:
- - Story
- Framework
- Contrarian
- Case study
- Teardown
- Build-in-public
Then select 2-3 hooks and finalize one.
Phase 3: Draft + Polish
- - Keep paragraphs short (1-2 lines)
- Front-load specifics
- Remove generic filler
- End with one clear CTA
- Add 3-6 hashtags max
LinkedIn Feed Dynamics (Practical)
What usually performs best:
- 1. Strong first two lines (stops the scroll)
- Specificity (numbers > adjectives)
- Credible vulnerability (mistakes + lessons)
- Clear structure (easy to skim on mobile)
- Conversation CTA (quality comments over empty likes)
Avoid:
- - Buzzword soup
- Generic motivation posts
- Overlong hashtag blocks
- Fake certainty without evidence
Hook Formulas (Most Important)
The Contrarian Hook
- - “Most people do [X]. That’s exactly why they stay stuck.”
- “Unpopular opinion: [industry belief] is outdated.”
The Specific Result Hook
- - “In [timeframe], we improved [metric] by [number]. Here’s how.”
- “We cut [cost/time] by [X%]. Not with a new tool—by changing this one workflow.”
The Mistake Hook
- - “I made this [role]-mistake for months. It cost us [outcome].”
- “We shipped the wrong thing fast. Here’s what fixed it.”
The Framework Hook
- - “The [3-step/4-step] framework I use for [outcome].”
- “If I had to restart as [role], I’d follow these 5 rules.”
The Question Hook
- - “Would you let your team do [X] without [Y]?”
- “What’s your biggest bottleneck in [domain] right now?”
High-Performing Post Formats
1) “This runs now” (Operational Story)
Best for real systems, workflows, and automations.
Template:
- - bold claim
- “Not as a demo. As an actual [responsibility/workflow].”
- “Here’s what it does:” with 4-6 concrete bullets
- measurable result
- perspective line + CTA question
2) Case Study
Template:
- - starting problem
- constraints
- intervention
- before/after metrics
- key lesson
- optional “comment TEMPLATE” CTA
3) Contrarian Opinion
Template:
- - challenge popular view
- explain why it fails in practice
- give 3 practical principles
- ask a polarizing but constructive question
4) Framework Post
Template:
- - name framework
- 3-5 steps
- one mistake to avoid
- one practical “do this today” action
5) Build-in-Public Update
Template:
- - what shipped this week
- what worked
- what broke
- what changed next
- ask for informed feedback
Persuasion Principles
Use these to increase clarity and trust:
- - Specificity: “Saved 3.2 hours/week” beats “saved time.”
- Mechanism: Explain how, not just outcomes.
- Credibility: Mention tradeoffs, not only wins.
- Relevance: Tie insight to audience reality.
- Clarity: One post = one core idea.
Writing Rules
- - Hook in first 1-2 lines
- 1-2 sentence paragraphs
- Prefer plain language over hype
- Use emojis sparingly as section markers
- Keep claims realistic
- Never invent outcomes, clients, or credentials
Hashtags:
- - 3-6 max
- niche + function + audience mix
- avoid spammy broad tags only
Output Contract
By default, provide:
- 1. 3 hook options
- 1 full post
- 1 spicier variant
- 3 first-comment ideas (to deepen discussion)
Optional on request:
- - NL / EN / NL-EN mixed variants
- X/Twitter adaptation
- Short + long versions
- Carousel text outline
Quick Prompt Template
When user gives a raw idea, ask/fill:
- - Audience:
- Goal:
- Topic:
- Proof points:
- Tone:
- CTA preference:
Then generate outputs per contract above.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- - Generic “AI changed everything” without concrete examples
- No proof signals
- Too many ideas in one post
- CTA mismatch (asking for leads on a pure thought-leadership post)
- Over-formatting with noisy symbols
Execution Checklist
Before finalizing:
- - [ ] Hook is strong and specific
- [ ] Core claim is clear
- [ ] Includes at least one proof signal
- [ ] Easy to skim on mobile
- [ ] CTA invites real conversation
- [ ] Hashtags are relevant and limited
- [ ] Tone feels authentic to author
使用前请阅读
使用前请阅读
LinkedIn 帖子引擎
概述
此技能可帮助您创建强大的 LinkedIn 帖子,使其显得人性化、有用且可信。
它结合了:
- - 经过验证的钩子框架,
- 清晰的叙事结构,
- 以证据为先的写作方式,
- 以及实用的行动号召设计。
关键词:LinkedIn、思想领导力、个人品牌、创始人帖子、B2B 内容、讲故事、案例研究、钩子、互动、权威
流程工作流
第一阶段:受众 + 定位(关键)
写作前,需明确:
- 1. 受众 — 这是为谁写的?(创始人、招聘人员、工程师、运营人员、营销人员、销售领导者等)
- 目标 — 触达、权威、潜在客户、招聘、信任、回复、主页访问量?
- 核心洞察 — 哪一点值得被记住?
- 证据 — 什么让这一点可信(数据、前后对比、限制条件、错误、结果)?
如果缺少证据,请使用 [X%]、[Y 小时] 等占位符,并请求提供具体数值。
第二阶段:结构 + 钩子选择
先选择格式,再开始写作:
然后选择 2-3 个钩子,并最终确定一个。
第三阶段:草稿 + 润色
- - 保持段落简短(1-2 行)
- 前置具体细节
- 删除通用填充内容
- 以一个清晰的行动号召结尾
- 最多添加 3-6 个话题标签
LinkedIn 信息流动态(实用指南)
通常表现最佳的内容:
- 1. 强有力的前两行(阻止用户滑动屏幕)
- 具体性(数字 > 形容词)
- 可信的脆弱感(错误 + 教训)
- 清晰的结构(便于在手机上快速浏览)
- 对话式行动号召(高质量评论优于空洞点赞)
应避免:
- - 流行语堆砌
- 通用的鸡汤帖
- 过长的标签块
- 缺乏证据的虚假确定性
钩子公式(最重要)
逆向观点钩子
- - “大多数人做 [X]。这正是他们停滞不前的原因。”
- “不受欢迎的观点:[行业信念] 已经过时了。”
具体结果钩子
- - “在 [时间段] 内,我们将 [指标] 提升了 [数字]。方法如下。”
- “我们将 [成本/时间] 削减了 [X%]。不是靠新工具——而是靠改变这一个工作流程。”
错误钩子
- - “我犯了这个 [角色] 的错误好几个月。它让我们付出了 [结果] 的代价。”
- “我们快速发布了错误的东西。这是修复它的方法。”
框架钩子
- - “我用来实现 [结果] 的 [3步/4步] 框架。”
- “如果我必须重新开始担任 [角色],我会遵循这 5 条规则。”
提问钩子
- - “你会让你的团队在没有 [Y] 的情况下做 [X] 吗?”
- “你现在在 [领域] 最大的瓶颈是什么?”
高绩效帖子格式
1) “现在运行这个”(运营故事)
最适合真实的系统、工作流程和自动化。
模板:
- - 大胆声明
- “不是作为演示。而是作为实际的 [职责/工作流程]。”
- “它的作用是:” 加上 4-6 个具体要点
- 可衡量的结果
- 观点陈述 + 行动号召问题
2) 案例研究
模板:
- - 初始问题
- 限制条件
- 干预措施
- 前后指标对比
- 关键教训
- 可选 “评论模板” 行动号召
3) 逆向观点
模板:
- - 挑战流行观点
- 解释其在实践中失败的原因
- 给出 3 个实用原则
- 提出一个两极分化但具有建设性的问题
4) 框架帖
模板:
- - 命名框架
- 3-5 个步骤
- 一个需要避免的错误
- 一个实用的 “今天就做” 行动
5) 公开构建更新
模板:
- - 本周发布了什么
- 什么有效
- 什么出了问题
- 下一步改变了什么
- 征求知情反馈
说服原则
使用这些原则来增加清晰度和信任度:
- - 具体性:“每周节省 3.2 小时” 优于 “节省时间”。
- 机制:解释如何做到,而不仅仅是结果。
- 可信度:提及权衡取舍,而不仅仅是成功。
- 相关性:将洞察与受众的现实联系起来。
- 清晰度:一篇帖子 = 一个核心观点。
写作规则
- - 钩子放在前 1-2 行
- 段落 1-2 句
- 优先使用平实的语言而非夸张
- 适度使用表情符号作为章节标记
- 保持主张切合实际
- 绝不捏造结果、客户或资历
话题标签:
- - 最多 3-6 个
- 混合使用细分领域 + 功能 + 受众标签
- 避免仅使用垃圾邮件式的宽泛标签
输出约定
默认情况下,提供:
- 1. 3 个钩子选项
- 1 篇完整帖子
- 1 个更犀利的变体
- 3 个首条评论创意(用于深化讨论)
根据要求可选:
- - 荷兰语 / 英语 / 荷英混合变体
- X/Twitter 适配版本
- 短版 + 长版
- 轮播图文本大纲
快速提示模板
当用户给出一个原始想法时,询问/填写:
- - 受众:
- 目标:
- 主题:
- 证据点:
- 语气:
- 行动号召偏好:
然后根据上述约定生成输出。
需要避免的常见陷阱
- - 没有具体例子的通用 “AI 改变一切”
- 没有证据信号
- 一篇帖子中包含太多想法
- 行动号召不匹配(在纯思想领导力帖子中索要潜在客户)
- 使用嘈杂符号过度格式化
执行检查清单
最终定稿前:
- - [ ] 钩子强有力且具体
- [ ] 核心主张清晰
- [ ] 包含至少一个证据信号
- [ ] 便于在手机上快速浏览
- [ ] 行动号召能引发真实对话
- [ ] 话题标签相关且数量有限
- [ ] 语气感觉符合作者真实风格