LinkedIn Expert Posts

Write authority-tier LinkedIn posts that build topical credibility and trust with your ICP. This skill covers the MOFU layer — between broad personal stories (TOFU) and sales-conversion posts (BOFU). These are the posts that make people save, share with their team, and think "this person gets it."

---

Doctrine inherited (Step 7 — 0626 rollout, locked 2026-06-04)

Output complies with output-tenets.md, output-simplicity.md, ai-speak-anti-patterns.md (banned X-not-Y hooks, no engagement-farming closers). Step 6 calibration: see [[feedback_execution_doctrine_refinements_step6]].

Refinements applied: R1 (post body is end-customer-facing — no source tags), R3 (capability-led framing), R6 (MOFU close = read more / blog as fallback; never engagement-farming question), R9 (claim-led hooks per Step 6).

---

Claude Code Triggers

Invoke this skill when user says:

• "contrarian take"
• "hot take on [topic]"
• "expert framework post"
• "industry analysis"
• "opinionated post"
• "thought leadership"
• "breakdown of [topic]"
• "prediction post"
• "what most [role]s get wrong"

Do NOT invoke when:

• User wants personal story posts → use linkedin-personal-posts
• User wants case study / client proof → use linkedin-sales-posts
• User wants a post about their product/offer → use linkedin-sales-posts
• User wants hook variations only → use linkedin-hooks

---

Inputs

Required

Input	Description	Source
Topic/angle	The expert view or framework to present	User provides
Pillar	Which content pillar this serves (Authority/MOFU)	Inferred or user confirms

Optional (improve quality)

Input	How it helps
Supporting proof	Data points, research, personal observations, named examples
Audience context	Who the ICP is — helps calibrate the contrarian angle
Preferred post type	One of the 5 post types below

Validation:

• There is a genuine expert POV to express (not just summarizing the obvious)
• The user has standing to make this claim (from experience, data, or reasoning)
• If using statistics or research — source is real and citable

---

Post Type Selector

Choose the format that best matches the topic and angle:

Post Type	When to use	Characteristic
Contrarian take	Challenging accepted wisdom	"Everyone says X. Here's why they're wrong."
Framework post	Explaining a system or model	"The 3 things [role] get wrong about [topic]"
Industry analysis	Interpreting data or market signals	"LinkedIn's algorithm changed. Here's what the data says."
Expert breakdown	Deconstructing complexity for the ICP	Step-by-step explanation of something hard
Prediction / hot take	Forward-looking, opinion-driven	"This GTM tactic is dying. Here's what replaces it."

Detailed structures + common mistakes per type in the premium reference.

---

Base Structure (all 5 types)

Voice-locked structure — this stays in body.

Hook (1-2 lines)
→ Stop the scroll. Contrarian or specific. No "Here's the thing:" openers.

Contrarian thesis (1-3 lines)
→ State your actual position. Don't hedge. Don't use "X isn't Y. It's Z." — just state the point.

3 supporting points (with proof)
→ Each point anchors the thesis with evidence, observation, or named example.
→ At least one point should be counterintuitive.

Reframe (1-3 lines)
→ What does the reader now see differently? How does this shift their mental model?

Opinion-driven CTA
→ Ask a question that invites debate, not a pitch. "What's your take?" or "Am I wrong here?"
→ Never end with "DM me" or a product pitch.

---

Voice and Format Rules

• Short sentences. One idea per line.
• Vertical format with line breaks.
• No bullet soup — use arrows (→) for lists, not hyphens.
• Contractions OK ("you're", "it's", "they're").
• First-person "I" for personal observations; avoid "we" unless citing a team.
• Run Dimension 7 (anti-AI-speak) check — no false contrast reframes, no "Here's the thing:", no wrapped bow endings.

Nick's X-not-Y sweep (mandatory before delivery)

Before output, scan every line of the draft for the banned false-contrast patterns (per feedback_no_x_not_y_hooks.md). Build a sweep table as shown in 0426-pmm-os-post.md lines 79-96:

Candidate sentence	Verdict
{exact line from draft}	{OK: positive declarative / OK: temporal transition / BANNED: X-not-Y — rewrite}

Check at minimum the hook, thesis line, each supporting-point transition, reframe line, and closing CTA. Any line matching "not X — Y", "X. It's Y.", "isn't about X, it's about Y", "Stop X. Start Y.", or two-sentence parallels where the second sentence asserts the inverse of the first is banned. Rewrite to positive declarative + behavioural implication before output.

---

Process

3-phase flow: Select Post Type → Write the Post (using the base structure above) → Apply Voice and Format Rules (incl. X-not-Y sweep). Per-post-type formulas, structures, and common mistakes in the premium reference.

---

Coach's Quality Gates (March + April 2026)

Voice-locked rules — these stay in body.

• G1: Less is more — zoom in on one thing, don't overview 5 steps
• G3: Each step could be its own post — flag if 4+ numbered steps
• G6: Hook is not a question with a predictable answer — "Should I make this public?" is friction-banned. If the hook is a question, confirm the answer isn't already obvious from the body.
• G7: Never link to someone else's domain — own your ecosystem
• G8: Pipeline CTA, not engagement CTA — "What's your take?" is fine; "What's your experience with X?" is not pipeline
• G9: Stats formatted as scannable bullet lists, not inline sentences
• G10: Visual recommendation included (1080 x 1350 portrait)

---

Anti-Hallucination Guardrails

1. No invented statistics. If you need a data point, ask for one or mark as [Data point needed].
2. No fabricated case studies. Use "a client I worked with" only if the user provided that context.
3. No invented research citations. If referencing a study, name the real source.
4. Mark speculation clearly. Use "In my experience..." or "What I'm seeing..." for personal observations.

---

Gotchas

• Generic hooks: Opens with "Most people think X but actually Y" without ICP-specific language → Hooks must use the ICP's vocabulary and reference their specific pain points.
• Framework without insight: Presents a 4-step framework that's all structure, no unique perspective → The framework should contain at least one contrarian or non-obvious element that demonstrates real expertise.
• Missing saves optimization: Writes for engagement (likes/comments) when expert posts should optimize for saves/bookmarks → Include a takeaway dense enough that people want to reference it later.
• Too salesy for MOFU: Sneaks in product mentions or CTAs that break the authority-building intent → Expert posts build credibility. Sales happens in sales posts. Keep them separate.

---

Quality

Pre-delivery checklist covers content quality, voice quality, format quality, and the 5-dim refine rubric (hook strength, clarity, engagement potential, platform fit, authenticity — score each, iterate any ≤ 6). Anti-examples in the premium reference.

---

Final ship gate

Run /premortem --output before ship. See /premortem skill for the 5 execution domains (will-it-resonate / will-it-convert / will-it-stay-on-brand / will-stakeholder-push-back / will-it-degrade-over-time) and output template.

Trivial-case escape: ## Premortem\nNo failure modes — trivial change satisfies the contract for genuinely trivial outputs.

---

Persuasion & stickiness pass

Output complies with persuasion-and-stickiness.md — Cialdini's 7 persuasion levers + Heath's SUCCESs. Deploy the 1-2 Cialdini levers that fit the reader's barrier (never all seven; every lever must be TRUE), run the SUCCESs diagnostic (Simple / Unexpected / Concrete / Credible / Emotional / Stories) over the near-final draft, then the rule's pre-ship gate.

---