linkedin-post-writer

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

LinkedIn Post Writer

LinkedIn 帖子写作

LinkedIn is its own game, and posts written like generic social captions underperform on it. The algorithm rewards two things above all — dwell time (how long people actually spend on the post) and early, meaningful comments — and the format has its own rules: the "…see more" hook, whitespace that makes long posts readable, links that suppress reach, and personal voices that beat company pages.

Two commitments shape every post here:

Earn the read, then earn the comment. Write the opening to win the "…see more" tap, format the body so people actually read it (dwell), and close in a way that invites a real comment.
Substance over LinkedIn theatre. The platform is full of broetry and "Agree? 👇" engagement bait — which both the algorithm and credible professionals increasingly punish. This skill does what genuinely works and refuses the cringe. See
```
references/avoiding-cringe.md
```
.

LinkedIn 有自己独特的内容规则，套用通用社交媒体文案写出的帖子通常表现不佳。该算法最看重两件事——停留时长（用户实际阅读帖子多久）和早期且有意义的评论——同时这种格式也有自己的规则：“…see more” hook、让长帖易于阅读的留白、会抑制触达的外部链接，以及表现优于公司主页的个人化声音。

这里的每篇帖子都遵循两项原则：

先赢得阅读，再赢得评论。 撰写能够赢得“…see more”点击的开头，通过排版正文让用户真正阅读（提升停留时长），并以能够自然引发真实评论的方式收尾。
内容实质胜过“LinkedIn 表演”。 平台上充斥着诗行体（broetry）和“同意吗？👇”式互动诱导——算法和可信的专业人士都越来越排斥这些内容。本 skill 只采用真正有效的方法，拒绝令人尴尬的内容。参见
```
references/avoiding-cringe.md
```
。

Step 0 — Read the foundation first

第 0 步——先读取基础信息

Load

brand-profile.md

and

voice.md

(and

audience.md

for the professional segment). The LinkedIn register is usually a notch more authority-leaning than other platforms, but still human and first-person. Carry guardrails and any compliance rules.

加载

brand-profile.md

和

voice.md

（针对专业受众时还需加载

audience.md

）。LinkedIn 上的表达通常比其他平台更偏权威风格，但仍然要保持真诚并使用第一人称。同时遵循所有内容边界和合规规则。

Step 1 — Lock the idea, goal, and who's posting

第 1 步——确定核心观点、目标和发布账号

One idea — the single point, story, or insight.
Goal — authority, leads/warming, comments, or reach (shapes the close).
Person vs company — personal/founder profiles consistently out-reach company pages and read as more trustworthy. Recommend a personal voice for thought leadership; reserve the company page for announcements/brand. (See
```
references/linkedin-mechanics.md
```
; the page's own strategy lives in
```
linkedin-company-pages
```
.)

一个核心观点——只聚焦一个观点、故事或洞察。
目标——建立权威、获取潜在客户或培育意向、评论或触达，这会决定结尾方式。
个人账号还是公司账号——个人或创始人账号的触达通常稳定高于公司主页，也更容易获得信任。对于思想领导力内容，建议使用个人化声音；公司主页则保留用于公告和品牌内容。（参见
```
references/linkedin-mechanics.md
```
；完整的公司主页策略位于
```
linkedin-company-pages
```
。）

Step 2 — Write the "see more" hook

第 2 步——撰写“see more”hook

Use

hook-writer

. The first line (~140 chars on mobile before "…see more") must earn the expand — that tap is the first dwell signal, and without it the post is invisible. Front-load tension; no warm-up, no "I'm excited to announce."

使用

hook-writer

。第一行（在移动端“... see more”之前约为 140 个字符）必须赢得展开点击——这次点击是第一个停留信号，如果无法赢得展开，帖子几乎不会获得曝光。应在开头制造张力；不要热身，也不要以“我很高兴宣布”开场。

Step 3 — Structure for dwell

第 3 步——围绕停留时长组织结构

Pick a LinkedIn format (personal-story→lesson, contrarian/POV, how-to, case study, observation — see

references/post-formats.md

), then format for readability: short sentences, one-to-two-line paragraphs, generous whitespace, a clear build. A wall of text kills dwell. (Whitespace as genuine readability — not the broetry gimmick of one dramatic fragment per line.)

选择一种 LinkedIn 格式（个人故事→经验教训、反常识/POV、操作指南、案例研究、观察——参见

references/post-formats.md

），然后优化可读性：使用简短句子、一到两行的段落、充足留白和清晰的递进结构。大段文字会严重降低停留时长。（留白是为了真正提升可读性，而不是把每一行都拆成一个戏剧化片段的 broetry 噱头。）

Step 4 — Write the body

第 4 步——撰写正文

Deliver the value or story the hook promised, in the brand voice at a LinkedIn register. Long is fine if it earns the read (limit ~3,000 chars) — every line must pull to the next. Don't pad; don't bait-and-switch the hook.

按照品牌语气，以符合 LinkedIn 的表达方式兑现 hook 所承诺的价值或故事。只要能够赢得阅读，内容长一些也没问题（上限约为 3,000 个字符）——每一行都应引导用户继续阅读。不要填充内容，也不要让正文与 hook 承诺不一致。

Step 5 — Close for comments + one soft CTA

第 5 步——以评论和温和 CTA 收尾

End with a genuine discussion question the audience can't help answering — relevant to their work, easy but interesting, not "Agree?". Early comments drive reach, and the author replying to them boosts it further. Add at most one soft CTA (follow for more, a resource) — LinkedIn isn't the place to hard-sell.

以一个受众自然愿意回答的真实讨论问题结尾——问题应与他们的工作相关、容易回答但仍有讨论价值，不能只是“同意吗？”。早期评论能够提升触达，作者回复这些评论还会进一步扩大触达。最多添加一个温和 CTA（关注以获取更多内容、提供资源等）——LinkedIn 不适合强势推销。

Step 6 — Mechanics

第 6 步——平台机制

Links: external links in the body suppress reach. Put the link in the first comment and say "link in comments," or post link-free. Native content wins. See
```
references/linkedin-mechanics.md
```
.
Hashtags: 3–5 relevant, at the end.
Format options: a document/PDF carousel is a high-dwell, high-save LinkedIn power format — if the idea suits it, write the post copy and hand the slides to
```
carousel-writer
```
.
AI disclosure: disclose AI-generated media/posts per the brand's compliance rules.

链接： 正文中包含外部链接会抑制触达。将链接放在第一条评论中，并注明“链接见评论”，或者发布不含链接的版本。原生内容表现更好。参见
```
references/linkedin-mechanics.md
```
。
Hashtags： 在结尾添加 3–5 个相关标签。
格式选项： 文档/PDF 轮播是一种高停留、高收藏的 LinkedIn 强力格式——如果主题适合，可以先撰写帖子文案，再将幻灯片交给
```
carousel-writer
```
。
AI 披露： 根据品牌的合规规则，披露由 AI 生成的媒体内容或帖子。

Deliver options, recommend one

提供多个方案，并推荐一个

Give 2–3 distinct posts (different angles or formats), then recommend one with a one-line reason tied to the goal.

提供 2–3 篇不同角度或格式的帖子，然后推荐其中一篇，并用一句话说明推荐理由，且该理由需与目标直接相关。

Quality bar — self-check

质量标准——自检

Does the first line win the "…see more" tap within the cutoff?
Is the body formatted for dwell (whitespace, scannable) and genuinely worth reading?
Does it sound like them at a LinkedIn register (voice + "never" list)?
Does it close on a real question that invites comments, with one soft CTA?
Are links routed to comments, hashtags sensible, format native?
Is it free of cringe — no broetry, no engagement bait, no fake vulnerability?
Would you be comfortable if a respected peer read it?

第一行是否能在截断位置之前赢得“... see more”点击？
正文是否通过留白和可扫描性为停留时长优化，并且确实值得阅读？
内容是否以符合 LinkedIn 的表达方式听起来像该品牌或作者（语气和“绝不做”清单）？
是否以一个能自然引发评论的真实问题收尾，并只包含一个温和 CTA？
链接是否移至评论、Hashtags 是否合理、格式是否符合平台原生习惯？
是否不含令人尴尬的内容——没有 broetry、互动诱导或虚假脆弱？
如果一位值得尊敬的同行读到这里，你是否觉得自在？

Edge cases & pushback

边界情况与反向建议

User asks for engagement bait ("write a 'comment YES' post," broetry, a fake-emotional story) → decline that approach and offer the genuine alternative that actually performs and protects credibility. (
```
references/avoiding-cringe.md
```
.)
Idea is really a one-liner → a short, sharp LinkedIn post or a poll can beat a forced essay; say so.
Company announcement → can run from the page, but suggest a personal founder/employee post alongside for reach.
Regulated/sensitive → carry compliance guardrails; no unverifiable claims; required disclaimers.
Hard-sell request → reframe toward value-first; LinkedIn punishes overt selling.
No real story/insight → don't manufacture a fake parable; sharpen the actual point or pick a format that fits what's true.

用户要求互动诱导（例如“写一篇让评论‘YES’的帖子”、broetry 或虚假情绪故事）→ 拒绝这种方式，并提供真正有效且能够保护信誉的替代方案。（
```
references/avoiding-cringe.md
```
。）
观点确实只有一句话 → 一篇简短有力的 LinkedIn 帖子或投票可能比硬凑成长文效果更好；应明确说明这一点。
公司公告 → 可以从公司主页发布，但建议同时由创始人或员工以个人身份发布，以提升触达。
受监管或敏感内容 → 遵循合规边界；不得加入无法验证的主张；必须提供规定的免责声明。
强势推销请求 → 调整为价值优先；LinkedIn 会惩罚过度销售行为。
没有真实故事或洞察 → 不要编造虚假的寓言；应提炼真实观点，或选择一种符合事实的格式。

Related skills

References

参考资料

```
references/linkedin-mechanics.md
```
— dwell, comments, the see-more cutoff, links, formats, personal-vs-company.
```
references/post-formats.md
```
— LinkedIn post structures and the comment-driven close.
```
references/avoiding-cringe.md
```
— what NOT to do (broetry, engagement bait) and what works instead.
```
references/examples.md
```
— worked LinkedIn posts, formatted for dwell, vs a cringe version.

```
references/linkedin-mechanics.md
```
——停留时长、评论、see-more 截断位置、链接、格式以及个人账号与公司账号的差异。
```
references/post-formats.md
```
——LinkedIn 帖子结构和以评论为导向的收尾方式。
```
references/avoiding-cringe.md
```
——不应采用的内容（broetry、互动诱导）及其有效替代方案。
```
references/examples.md
```
——经过停留时长优化的 LinkedIn 帖子示例，并与令人尴尬的版本进行对比。