mirror of https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills.git synced 2026-08-28 04:24:58 +00:00

feat(marketing): add linkedin plugin — organic presence with platform rules in code

Answers discussion #934, which asked for a strategic assistant for growing a
LinkedIn presence organically rather than a post generator.

Six skills under marketing/linkedin/: an orchestrator (context: fork) plus
profile, strategy, content, engagement, and analytics lanes. 17 stdlib-only
tools, 15 references, 2 agents, 8 /cs:* commands.

The design constraint is the differentiator: no LinkedIn credentials, no API
calls, no scraping, nothing auto-sent. Automated posting, connecting, and
commenting are prohibited by LinkedIn's User Agreement 8.2, and a restricted
account ends a compounding asset. linkedin_policy_gate.py runs before any
drafting and refuses seven request classes — automation, scraping, engagement
pods, bulk messaging, fake identity, fabricated proof, named third-party
automation platforms — each carrying the policy anchor and a compliant
substitute, so the gate never just says no.

Refusals are real rather than advisory. A cadence under 90 minutes a week
returns a comment-only plan instead of a schedule that dies in week five. A
newsletter whose six-month cost exceeds the budget is refused before the promise
is made. An experiment needing more posts than a quarter allows is reported
infeasible rather than quietly re-sized. The pattern miner refuses to test
anything below 10 posts and reports NOTHING_SURVIVED as a finding.

Evidence discipline: two widely repeated claims are corrected rather than
propagated. The "personalised note triples acceptance" claim is not supported by
the largest samples (acceptance is near-identical either way, ~26.4%); what a
note moves is the post-accept reply rate (~5.4% to ~9.4%), which is why the
message builder refuses an ask in a first-touch note. The ~19% in-body link
reach reduction has never been confirmed by LinkedIn as a penalty and has a
plausible dwell-time explanation, so it is a warning rather than a block. Every
reference carries per-claim confidence levels.

Accessibility is a blocking lint finding: Unicode pseudo-bold is announced by
screen readers as mathematical symbols and is not indexed by search.

All six SKILL.md files are 6/6 PASS on the write-a-skill checklist. Every tool
supports --help, --sample, and --output json with typed exit codes.

Counters: skills 380 -> 386; plugins 96 -> 97; tools 706 -> 723; refs 823 -> 838;
agents 114 -> 116; commands 138 -> 146 (derive_counters.py --check).

Also syncs three previously-merged skills (agent-memory, hivemind, skill-doctor)
into the .hermes/ and .vibe/ mirror trees, which had drifted behind .codex/.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JSPxUHU6utqme7qC6EwHEh

2026-08-25 07:32:30 +00:00

3.8 KiB

Raw Blame History

name	description	argument-hint
cs-grill-linkedin	/cs:grill-linkedin — Interrogate a LinkedIn plan one forcing question at a time, each with a recommended answer anchored in the plugin's canon. Refuses to start the work until the objective, the audience, the hours, the proof, and the exclusion list survive the questions.	[the LinkedIn plan or ambition you want pressure-tested]

/cs:grill-linkedin — One question at a time, with a recommendation

Command: /cs:grill-linkedin [your plan]

Most LinkedIn plans fail on inputs, not execution. This walks the five questions that decide whether any of the tools can run honestly. One question per turn, each with a recommended answer and the canon it comes from. Never bundle.

When to run

The ambition is real but the plan is vague ("I want to build a presence")
Before committing a quarter to a cadence
When a previous attempt stalled and nobody has said why

The questions

Q1 — What has to be true in 90 days for this to have been worth it? Recommended: one observable outcome another person could verify — an inbound conversation, an offer, a hire. Not a follower count. Canon: objective_to_pillars.md. Follower count moves for reasons unrelated to the objective; optimising the number you can see instead of the outcome you want is the most common way a LinkedIn strategy fails while appearing to work.

Q2 — Who is this for, specifically enough that someone is excluded? Recommended: role + company stage + the problem they have this quarter. Canon: same document, and positioning_brief.py refuses "business leaders" at exit 3. An audience that excludes nobody cannot guide a single editorial decision.

Q3 — How many minutes a week will you protect, measured from a bad week? Recommended: the honest number, not the aspirational one. Below 90, the answer is a comment-only week. Canon: cadence_and_consistency.md. A cadence abandoned in week five is worse than one never started, because the abandonment is visible.

Q4 — What proof already exists? Recommended: name shipped work, a measurement, a repo, a hire, a talk. If none exists, the first pillar is process, not results. Canon: policy_and_account_safety.md — the fabrication refusal. A pillar with no proof is a claim you would have to invent evidence for.

Q5 — What will you not post about? Recommended: two topics, including the trending one you have no edge on. Canon: objective_to_pillars.md. A positioning that excludes nothing is availability, and the exclusion list is what settles the "should I comment on this news cycle" question in advance.

Discipline

One question per turn. Wait for the answer. Never bundle.
Always recommend. A question with no recommended answer is homework, not a grill.
Cite the canon for each challenge — the reference document, not a feeling.
Stop early when the lane can run honestly. The full set is not a ritual.
Push back once on a weak answer, then accept it. Their presence, their call. Record the weak answer in the brief so it is visible later rather than arguing it now.

Stop conditions

All five answered well enough that positioning_brief.py would exit 0 → hand off to /cs:linkedin-plan.
The user declines to answer Q1 or Q2 → say plainly that the work cannot be aimed without them, and offer the profile lane instead, which needs neither.

Agent: cs-linkedin-orchestrator
Command: /cs:linkedin
Agreement: linkedin_operating_agreement.md

3.8 KiB Raw Blame History