81176406e3
Sixth review round. One finding, reproduced first, plus a help-text nit.
The connection branch was fixed earlier this PR to stop scanning a whole note with
the loose ASK_RE, which raised a false premature-ask on "your post on on-call
rotations". The else branch (dm / inmail / followup) had the same defect running
the other way: there a loose match SUPPRESSES a real finding.
pitch language, no ask, neutral text -> warning fires
pitch language, no ask, "on-call rotations" -> warning silently lost
pitch language, no ask, "chat feature" -> warning silently lost
pitch language, no ask, "demo video" -> warning silently lost
Any note containing one of ASK_RE's words anywhere lost its pitch-without-ask
warning even with no ask in it. An ask is now the --ask field or meeting-request
framing in the note - the same test the connection branch uses.
That left ASK_RE referenced nowhere, so it is removed rather than kept as a dead
pattern; its rationale moves into the comment on MEETING_ASK_RE, which now records
both directions the defect ran in.
Verified: the three suppressed cases now fire, and three controls stay quiet - a
real ask in --ask, a meeting-shaped ask in the note, and a note with no pitch at
all.
Also: cadence_planner's argparse description did not mention NO_POSTS_AFFORDABLE,
which shares exit 3 with over-budget. Help text only, no behaviour change.
Not changed, deliberately: _read_input's duplication across 11 scripts (the
self-contained-package convention's accepted cost), and the two different
shapes of bare-list validation between pattern_miner and post_performance_analyzer
- both are correct, and churning one to match the other adds diff without
changing behaviour.
Blocking gates green - compileall, check_paths, check_frontmatter,
check_dual_publish, check_model_freshness, check_skill_names, check_plugin_json
--all, derive_counters --check, smoke_scripts 696/696. Adversarial battery 18/18.
Pinned samples unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BswsZp5zrJWFAGU6KWNA1s
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| .claude-plugin | ||
| agents | ||
| commands | ||
| skills | ||
| README.md | ||
linkedin — organic LinkedIn presence, with the rules enforced in code
A strategic assistant for building an authentic LinkedIn presence over months, not a post generator. Built in response to discussion #934.
The design constraint that shapes everything else: this plugin holds no LinkedIn credentials, makes no API calls, scrapes nothing, and sends nothing. Every output is text the account holder posts themselves. Automated posting, connecting, commenting, and liking are prohibited by LinkedIn's User Agreement §8.2, and a restricted account ends a compounding asset that took months to build. So the refusals are in code, at the front of every lane, and each one names a compliant substitute.
/cs:linkedin # gate + route
/cs:grill-linkedin # five forcing questions before the work starts
/cs:linkedin-profile # headline, About, whole-profile audit
/cs:linkedin-plan # brief, pillars, cadence, newsletter
/cs:linkedin-post # format, draft, lint
/cs:linkedin-repurpose # article/talk -> posts, with a reuse ledger
/cs:linkedin-outreach # comment roster + one message at a time
/cs:linkedin-analyze # your own export, analysed honestly
What is here
| Skill | Tools | Does |
|---|---|---|
linkedin-skills (orchestrator, context: fork) |
2 | Policy gate (ALLOW / CONSTRAIN / REFUSE) then a deterministic five-lane router with cross-lane prerequisites |
| linkedin-profile | 3 | Headline scored on five dimensions vs the 220-char cap; whole profile 0-100 with fixes ranked by points per hour; About section assembled to survive the fold |
| linkedin-strategy | 3 | Positioning brief validator; cadence priced in minutes with a 90-minute floor; newsletter eligibility + six-month sustainability gate |
| linkedin-content | 3 | Post linter (mechanics / hook / integrity / accessibility); format picker; repurpose splitter with a reuse ledger |
| linkedin-engagement | 3 | Capped commenting roster; message builder that refuses templates; volume guard that refuses automation-shaped plans |
| linkedin-analytics | 3 | Median/MAD describer; four-gate permutation pattern miner; experiment planner |
Plus 2 agents, 8 commands, 15 references (7 sources each), 11 assets.
The parts that are different
The policy gate runs before anything is drafted. Seven refusal rules covering automation, scraping, engagement pods, bulk messaging, fake identity, fabricated proof, and named third-party automation tools — each with the User Agreement clause and a substitute that achieves the same goal legitimately. A REFUSE outranks any route.
Evidence is graded, and two popular claims are corrected. Every quantitative claim carries 🟢 (LinkedIn-official), 🟡 (third-party study), or 🔴 (folklore, named as folklore).
- The "a personalised note triples acceptance" claim is not supported by the largest samples,
which show acceptance close to identical either way (~26.4%). What a note actually moves is
the post-accept reply rate (~5.4% → ~9.4%). That changes what the note should say: it
earns the conversation, not the meeting — which is why
outreach_message_builder.pyrefuses an ask in a first-touch connection note. - The ~19% in-body link reach reduction has never been confirmed by LinkedIn as a penalty and has a plausible non-punitive explanation via dwell time. It is a warning, not a block.
The analytics refuse to over-conclude. pattern_miner.py puts every candidate through four
gates: a group-size floor, a 15% minimum relative effect, a seeded permutation test, and a
multiple-comparisons accounting that reports how many candidates would pass on noise alone.
Below 10 posts it refuses to test anything. NOTHING_SURVIVED is the most common honest
answer and is reported as a finding, not a failure.
Accessibility is a blocking finding, not a footnote. Unicode pseudo-bold — the output of "bold text generators" — is a blocking lint failure, because screen readers announce those characters as mathematical symbols and LinkedIn search does not index them as words.
Refusals are refusals. A cadence under 90 minutes a week returns a comment-only plan rather than a schedule that will be abandoned in week five. A newsletter whose six-month cost exceeds the budget is refused before the promise is made. An experiment that needs more posts than a quarter allows is reported as infeasible rather than quietly re-sized.
Quick start
# See every tool run with zero configuration
python3 skills/linkedin-skills/scripts/linkedin_policy_gate.py --sample --output human
python3 skills/linkedin-profile/scripts/headline_scorer.py --sample-weak --output human
python3 skills/linkedin-strategy/scripts/cadence_planner.py --sample --output human
python3 skills/linkedin-content/scripts/post_linter.py --sample --output human
python3 skills/linkedin-engagement/scripts/outreach_volume_guard.py --sample --output human
python3 skills/linkedin-analytics/scripts/pattern_miner.py --sample --output human
Every tool supports --help, --sample, and --output json, uses the standard library
only, and returns typed exit codes so an agent can branch on the verdict rather than parse
prose.
Distinct from
marketing-skill/x-twitter-growth— X/Twitter mechanics. Different platform, different format economics, different rules.marketing-skill/social-content,social-media-manager— multi-platform brand calendars. This is one person's own presence on one platform, in depth.marketing-skill/social-media-analyzer— cross-platform campaign reporting. This reads your own LinkedIn export and refuses to conclude below 10 posts.marketing-skill/cold-email— different channel, different law, different caps.
Provenance
Requested in discussion #934.
Refusal rules derive from LinkedIn's published User Agreement §8.2, the Prohibited Software
and Extensions help article, and the Professional Community Policies. No LinkedIn code, data,
or proprietary material is included. See .claude-plugin/authoring-notes.json.
Version: 1.0.0 · MIT · 6 skills · 17 stdlib tools · 15 references · nothing auto-sent