LinkedIn Thought Leadership Post — Output Skill
What this produces: A ready-to-publish LinkedIn post optimized for both authority and distribution. Plain text for text posts. If carousel, a brief with slide-by-slide content for design execution.
Output format: Text in a code block (for easy copy-paste) or saved as li-{{topic-slug}}-thought-leadership.md
Reference files:
03-li-thought-leadership-golden-examples.md— Structural templates. Four examples: 3 Worldview/Insight + 1 Proof/Math. Select the closest example before writing and match its structural pattern. These are the standard, not a reference to check after the fact.voice.md— Read before every post. Voice wins over all other rules.copy-qc.md— Run against every post before delivering.linkedin-sentence-editor.md— Final sentence-level audit.
Build Process
Step 0: Read Companion Files
Before proposing anything, read:
- voice.md — Vocabulary, cadence, tone, avoid list
- audience.md — Who the reader is, what they believe, what triggers action
- soul.md — Why this brand exists
- offer.md — What Advisory OS sells (posts don't sell directly, but the offer shapes what patterns matter)
If source material is provided, read it completely. Find the insight inside it — do not summarize.
Step 1: Run the Intake
Walk through all seven intake decisions from 01-li-thought-leadership-context.md:
- Angle — Propose 2–3 with rationale. Recommend one.
- Core Insight — The insight, the assumption it challenges, why it matters, and the status angle.
- Hook — Propose 2–3 opening lines.
- Arc — Section flow based on the angle.
- Conversation Prompt — Propose 2–3 prompts with status analysis for each.
- Closer — Propose 2–3 final lines.
- Format — Text post or carousel. Recommend based on the material.
After all seven are locked, produce the Post Lock:
POST LOCK: [Working Title]
Angle: [Angle name]
Core insight: [One sentence]
Assumption challenged: [What the audience currently believes]
Status angle: [What engaging signals about the reader]
Hook: [Opening line]
Arc: [Section flow]
Closer: [Final statement]
Conversation prompt: [Specific question/provocation]
Format: [Text-only / Carousel]
Step 1b: Create the Image Brief
After the Post Lock is confirmed, create the image brief:
- Apply the 2-second test — can someone with zero context understand this in 2 seconds?
- Choose the image concept — recognition question, reframing insight, or bold statement. The image stops the scroll. The post delivers the insight. The article provides the full experience.
- Write the quote card content:
- Campaign label (top center, small tracked uppercase)
- Primary text (center, large, ivory) — recognition question or bold statement
- Gold divider
- Secondary text (center, medium, gold) — reframing insight
- Logo (bottom center)
- Check against anti-patterns — no crossing-lines data visuals, no data tables, no numbers without context, no too-small text, no novel frameworks as visuals.
Visual brand specs are in 02-li-thought-leadership-terminology.md (Image System section).
Step 2: Write the First Pass
Before writing a single line:
- Select the golden example closest to your angle — Examples 1–3 are Worldview/Insight posts, Example 4 is a Proof/Math post
- Study its structural spine: How does it open? Where does the story live? When does the insight land? Is it scene-led or thesis-led?
- Write from that structure. The Post Lock tells you WHAT to write. The golden example tells you HOW.
Two post types (Steve's DNA): All Advisory OS TL posts follow the same structural DNA — short lines, white space, scannable on mobile. Never narrative essays. Never paragraphs of prose. Each number, each beat, each statement gets its own line.
- Worldview/Insight: Hook → short lines building insight → the reframe → philosophical close. No lists. No math.
- Proof/Math: Hook → first line → numbered list → quick math → inverted list → mismatch → compound math → anchor line. Makes invisible cost visible with specific numbers.
Writing sequence:
- Write the hook exactly as locked — must create behavioral recognition ("that's me")
- Write the first line — sets up proof, under 10 words, opens what comes next. No elaboration on the hook. No transition language.
- Follow the arc section by section — match the golden example's delivery pattern, not a thesis-first lecture
- Each block: 1–3 sentences doing one thing
- Place line breaks for rhythm (see Line Break Decision Tree)
- Write the closer
- Write the conversation prompt — this is not an afterthought, it's the distribution engine
- Check total length: 1,300–1,900 characters target
- Read aloud — check for metronomic rhythm and AI patterns
- Check characters: one scenario per post, pronouns established before use, numbers consistent
Step 3: Self-Check Before Delivering
Structural comparison (check FIRST — before anything else):
- [ ] Compare against the selected golden example. Is the post scene-led or thesis-led?
- [ ] Does the insight emerge through narrative, or is it announced in the hook/opening and then illustrated?
- [ ] If thesis-led: rewrite scene-first before running any other checks. QC cannot fix a structural problem.
Authority checks:
- [ ] Core insight is counterintuitive, not obvious
- [ ] Hook creates behavioral recognition ("that's me") — not a conclusion, secret, prediction, or question
- [ ] Hook is one line, under 15 words, in the reader's vocabulary
- [ ] First line sets up proof, under 10 words — no elaboration, no transition
- [ ] Every block does one thing
- [ ] Evidence is specific (numbers, names, dialogue, concrete details)
- [ ] Closer is quotable without context
- [ ] No hedge language where the pattern is clear
- [ ] Voice matches voice.md
- [ ] One scenario per post — pronouns established, numbers consistent
Distribution checks:
- [ ] Total length is 1,300–1,900 characters
- [ ] Conversation prompt invites specific, multi-sentence responses
- [ ] Conversation prompt is status-positive for the commenter
- [ ] No external links, hashtags, or engagement bait
- [ ] Post stays in Advisory OS topic lane
- [ ] At least one section has details that increase dwell time
Status checks:
- [ ] Can articulate what engaging signals about the reader
- [ ] The reader is elevated by this content, not lectured
- [ ] The insight gives the reader language they can use elsewhere
Step 4: Flag Known Weaknesses
After delivering, explicitly note what might need work:
- "The conversation prompt is too generic. Needs a more specific question requiring real experience."
- "The post is 1,100 characters — may need another beat in the middle to hit the dwell time sweet spot."
- "The closer is clean but may not be screenshot-worthy. Consider a sharper version."
- "This might perform better as a carousel — the comparison structure invites swipes."
Step 5: Revision + QC
Pass 1 — Copy QC (copy-qc.md): Scan every line against all 11 patterns. Fix every P1 and P2.
QC posture: fail-first. When a pattern is detected, the default is FAIL. To keep a flagged line, cite a specific golden example that uses the same structure and was annotated as acceptable in its Copy QC Notes. "I think it works here" is not sufficient — show the precedent or rewrite. If no golden example does the same thing, it fails.
Pass 2 — Sentence Editor (linkedin-sentence-editor.md): Audit every line against all 8 rules. Present changelog.
Only deliver as "ready to ship" after both passes are clean.
Line Break Decision Tree
Give it its own line when:
- The sentence carries standalone weight (closer, turn, principle)
- It's dialogue
- It's a sequence item (math steps, escalating specifics)
- It's a dramatic fragment used once for maximum impact
Keep it in a block when:
- Sentences build on each other
- Content is explanatory, not rhythmic
- Breaking would create staccato-everything pacing
The staccato test: More than 3 consecutive single-sentence lines? Add a multi-sentence block.
Angle-Specific Build Notes
Reframe
- The pivot line is the post. Everything else sets it up or pays it off.
- Needs to be longer than a tweet — the 1,300 char minimum means the reframe needs setup and implication, not just the pivot.
- Conversation prompt type: Application challenge or Experience mirror.
Contrarian Take
- The borrowed authority earns permission for the flip. Don't skip it.
- The flip must be defensible.
- Land on a sharp claim, not a qualified one.
- Conversation prompt type: Debate invitation or Specific ask. Contrarian takes generate the best debate threads.
Proof Story
- Start with the outcome, not the backstory.
- Compress the how. The reader needs enough to believe it, not every step.
- Extract the principle explicitly.
- Conversation prompt type: Experience mirror or Results share. Proof stories invite "here's mine" responses.
Math Post
- Start with a person, not a spreadsheet.
- Use arrows (→) for line items. One calculation per line.
- The shift moment ("Oh — that's doable") is the payoff.
- Conversation prompt type: Application challenge. "Run your numbers" prompts generate high-effort, multi-sentence comments.
Identity Shift
- The old identity must be described precisely enough for recognition.
- The shift often comes through a conversation or question. Use dialogue.
- Stay in operational vocabulary.
- Conversation prompt type: Forced choice or Turning point. Identity posts generate "which one are you?" threads.
Pattern Call-Out
- Escalate the specifics.
- Don't prescribe. Create recognition.
- Tone: "I've watched this a hundred times."
- Conversation prompt type: Experience mirror. "What does this look like in your practice?" generates the most authentic responses.
First Principles
- Describe the conventional approach accurately enough for the reader to nod.
- The reduction should feel like relief.
- Conversation prompt type: Debate invitation or Application challenge.
Lesson Learned
- The mistake must be real and specific.
- The lesson must be actionable.
- Conversation prompt type: Turning point. "What belief have you abandoned?" invites vulnerability-as-strength responses.
Common First-Pass Mistakes to Avoid
| Mistake | What to Do Instead |
|---|---|
| No conversation prompt — post ends on the closer | The closer is the takeaway. The conversation prompt is the distribution engine. Both are required. |
| Conversation prompt is "What do you think?" or "Agree?" | Use one of the six prompt types. Specific, status-positive, requires multi-sentence answer. |
| Post is under 1,300 characters | Add a beat. The algorithm treats short posts as low-effort. Even reframes need setup and implication. |
| Post is over 2,200 characters | Compress or split. Completion rate drops past this point. If it needs more room, it's a carousel or an article. |
| Hook announces a topic instead of creating a gap | Lead with a scene, claim, or number. Not "Let's talk about client retention." |
| Hook gives a conclusion instead of recognition | "You don't know what your clients value" puts them on defense. "You already know which deliverables you'd cut first" creates recognition. |
| First line elaborates on the hook | The hook already landed. The first line opens proof (a list, steps, evidence). Under 10 words. No transition. |
| Post reads as narrative essay or dense paragraphs | Steve's DNA: short lines, white space, scannable. Each number and beat gets its own line. Never paragraphs of prose. |
| Multiple characters or scenarios in one post | One scenario. One character. Escalate within that thread. If you need multiple examples, the article handles it. |
| Pronouns before establishing who they refer to | "She was confident" — who? Establish role + action, then pronouns. |
| Post tries to make three points | One insight. One through-line. One conversation prompt. |
| Every sentence gets its own line | Mix single-line beats with 2–3 sentence blocks. Staccato-everything is an AI pattern. |
| Post sounds like a motivational poster | Ground every insight in operational reality. voice.md vocabulary. |
| Post has an external link | 60% reach penalty. If you need to link, put it in a comment (though this is also being penalized in 2026). |
| Status angle not designed | If you can't articulate what engaging signals about the reader, the post may inform but won't earn engagement. |
| Closer tries to be an aphorism | Concrete beats clever. "What they could see did." not "Perception is the ultimate currency." |
| Conversation prompt asks people to admit failure | Nobody wants their network to see them admitting weakness. Ask for expertise, not vulnerability. |
| Post is thesis-led instead of scene-led | The golden examples all lead with scenes and let the insight emerge through narrative. If the hook announces the insight and the body illustrates it, the structure is backwards. Rewrite scene-first. |
| QC rationalizes flagged patterns instead of failing them | When copy-qc detects a pattern, the default is FAIL. Cite a golden example precedent to keep it, or rewrite. No rationalizing. |