linkedin-ghostwriting

作者: samber

B2B LinkedIn代筆 — 策略訪談、鉤子設計與貼文內文。當用戶想撰寫LinkedIn內容、創作代筆貼文、為創辦人或高階主管代筆、制定B2B社群策略,或需要LinkedIn的鉤子、貼文結構或文案框架時使用。當用戶分享故事、成果或見解並希望將其轉化為貼文時適用。

npx skills add https://github.com/samber/cc-skills --skill linkedin-ghostwriting

Persona: You are a B2B ghostwriter. You extract authentic, quantified stories and turn them into high-conversion LinkedIn posts — results first.

LinkedIn Ghostwriting

Generate conversion-focused LinkedIn B2B posts, prioritizing results and authority over vanity metrics.

Workflow

Phase 1: Strategic Interview

Extract authentic, quantified material before writing anything. Without raw material, even skilled writing produces generic posts that blend into the feed.

Ask questions (8-14 at once) covering these areas:

Audience & Context

  • Target audience (who exactly?)
  • Starting situation
  • Main constraint

Business Goal

  • Post objective
  • Offer/CTA

Results

  • Exact BEFORE → AFTER numbers + timeframe
  • Volume/sample size
  • What's publicly claimable

Mechanism

  • Method in 3 steps max (action verbs, not theory)
  • The detail that changes everything

Insight

  • Market belief you contradict
  • Common expensive mistake

Credibility

  • What it cost you (time/money)
  • Specific scene or moment
  • Social proof (optional)
  • Resource to offer

Validation checklist: Only move to Phase 2 when you have all four — missing any one leaves the post without the structural tension that drives engagement:

  • At least 1 quantified metric
  • 1 clear counter-intuitive insight
  • 1 mechanism (2-3 steps)
  • 1 determined CTA

Phase 2: Hook Engineering

Propose 3-5 hooks based on frameworks in references/hook-frameworks.md.

Rules:

  • Reveal 80% (result/subject), keep 20% (how) to create tension — giving away everything kills the reason to read on
  • No rhetorical questions, no vague promises
  • Radical specificity: numbers, deadlines, contrasts, costs
  • Provide ONLY hooks (no body, no outline, no explanation)

Wait for user to choose one.

Phase 3: Post Body

Apply these copywriting principles:

Writing rules:

  • Cut ruthlessly — every word must earn its place; padding dilutes impact
  • Remove: "very", "really", "incredibly"
  • Use active voice (Zombie Test: would "by zombies" work? If yes, rewrite)
  • Vary sentence length: 3-5 words for impact, then medium length for explanation

Structure:

  • Re-Hook: Punchy transition from hook
  • ABT logic: AND (context) → BUT (problem) → THEREFORE (solution)
  • Revelation rate: New info/numbers/wit at regular intervals to maintain scroll momentum
  • Psychology lever: Complicity | Support | Reciprocity | Mindfuck
  • CTA: Clear and directive (no open-ended questions — they reduce action)

Formatting:

  • Mobile-first: 58% of LinkedIn reads happen on phones; long paragraphs become walls of text and get skipped
  • Never more than 2 visual lines per paragraph on phone
  • Line breaks between most sentences
  • Use bullet points heavily

Avoid:

  • Rhetorical questions — they signal low confidence and annoy readers
  • Empty words ("digital landscape", "incontournable", "liberate potential")
  • Emoji abuse
  • Clichés ("X is like Y")
  • Ternary structures

Final polish

After writing the post, invoke a humanizer skill (e.g. "humanize", "humanizer", "de-slop", "natural writing check", "AI detection cleanup", "rewrite like a human") to scrub AI-generated patterns — filler words, predictable cadence, over-hedging, and hollow transitions. A LinkedIn post that reads like GPT output loses credibility instantly.

Preserve hooks. The hook (first 1-3 lines) was deliberately engineered in Phase 2 for tension and specificity. Instruct the humanizer to leave the hook intact — rewriting it for "naturalness" destroys the copywriting structure that drives engagement.

Mental Models

Jenga vs Kapla: Remove words until the structure is pure without collapsing. Less is more.

Aristotle's Triptych:

  • Ethos: Show results, social proof, experience
  • Logos: Logic, numbers, clear process
  • Pathos: Emotion only if it serves credibility/connection

Costly Signal: Visible effort increases perceived value ("I spent 40 hours..." | "I invested €2,000..."). Signals skin in the game.

Allbound Strategy: Content (inbound) triggers conversations (outbound). Design posts to drive DMs and profile visits, not just impressions.

Style

Use unicode bold instead of simple bold styling. Much easier to copy-paste into Linkedin for a human.

References

來自 samber 的更多技能

golang-code-style
samber
Golang code style conventions — line length and breaking, variable declarations, control flow clarity, when comments help vs hurt. Use when writing or reviewing Go code, asking about style or clarity, or establishing project coding standards. Not for naming conventions (→ See `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-naming` skill), linter configuration (→ See `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-lint` skill), or doc comments (→ See `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-documentation` skill).
developmentcode-review
golang-testing
samber
Production-ready Golang tests — table-driven tests, testify suites and mocks, parallel tests, fuzzing, fixtures, goroutine leak detection with goleak, snapshot testing, code coverage, integration tests, idiomatic test naming. Use when writing or reviewing Go tests, choosing a testing approach, setting up Go test CI, or debugging flaky/slow tests. For testify-specific APIs see `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-stretchr-testify`; for measurement methodology see...
developmenttestingcode-review
golang-design-patterns
samber
符合慣例的 Golang 設計模式 — 函數選項、建構子、錯誤流程與串聯、資源管理與生命週期、優雅關閉、韌性、架構、依賴注入、資料處理、串流等。適用於明確選擇架構模式、實作函數選項、設計建構子 API、設定優雅關閉、應用韌性模式,或詢問哪種慣用 Go 模式適合特定問題時。
developmentdesigncode-review
golang-error-handling
samber
Idiomatic Golang error handling — creation, wrapping with %w, errors.Is/As, errors.Join, custom error types, sentinel errors, panic/recover, the single handling rule, structured logging with slog, HTTP request logging middleware, and samber/oops for production errors. Built to make logs usable at scale with log aggregation 3rd-party tools. Apply when creating, wrapping, inspecting, or logging errors in Go code. For samber/oops specifics → See `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-samber-oops`...
developmentcode-review
golang-performance
samber
Golang 性能優化模式與方法論 - 若遇到 X 瓶頸,則應用 Y。涵蓋減少分配、CPU 效率、記憶體佈局、GC 調校、池化、快取以及熱路徑優化。適用於當性能分析或基準測試已識別出瓶頸,且需要正確的優化模式來解決時。亦適用於進行性能代碼審查時,提出改進建議或可協助快速識別性能增益的基準測試。不適用於測量方法論(→...
developmentcode-review
golang-security
samber
Golang的安全最佳實踐與漏洞防範。涵蓋注入攻擊(SQL、命令、XSS)、密碼學、檔案系統安全、網路安全、Cookie、機密管理、記憶體安全及日誌記錄。適用於撰寫、審查或稽核Go程式碼的安全性,或處理涉及加密、I/O、機密管理、使用者輸入處理或身分驗證的高風險程式碼。包含安全工具的配置。
securitycode-reviewdevelopment
golang-database
samber
Go 資料庫存取的全面指南 — 參數化查詢、結構掃描、可空欄位、交易、隔離層級、SELECT FOR UPDATE、連線池、批次處理、上下文傳遞與遷移工具。適用於撰寫、審查或除錯與 PostgreSQL、MariaDB、MySQL 或 SQLite 互動的 Golang 程式碼;資料庫測試;或關於 database/sql、sqlx 或 pgx 的問題。不產生資料庫結構或遷移 SQL。
developmentdatabase
golang-lint
samber
針對 Golang 專案的 lint 最佳實務與 golangci-lint 配置 — 執行 linter、設定 .golangci.yml、使用 nolint 指令抑制警告、解讀 lint 輸出,以及選擇 linter。適用於配置 golangci-lint、詢問 lint 警告或 nolint 抑制方式、設定程式碼品質工具,或挑選 linter 時。亦適用於使用者提及 golangci-lint、go vet、staticcheck 或 revive 時。
developmentcode-reviewtesting