matteotitta LinkedIn Content Guide
Builds a practitioner-first LinkedIn ICP and distills it to ONE focused offer — using Nick Broekema's framework adapted for AI-assisted research. Produces a 14-question ICP, a Pains→Goals content guide, an offer statement, and a SCART brief with 9 post ideas.
How it differs from /icp-research: that skill does market-level ICP analysis for B2B SaaS products. This skill builds a personal ICP for LinkedIn positioning — starting from your best collaborations and practitioner experience, supplemented by website research.
Doctrine inherited (Step 7 — 0626 rollout, locked 2026-06-04)
Output complies with output-tenets.md, output-simplicity.md, ai-speak-anti-patterns.md. Step 6 calibration: see [[feedback_execution_doctrine_refinements_step6]].
Refinements applied: R1 (guide doc is internal-reference for other LinkedIn skills — inline cites stay), R3 (offer + post-idea framing operator-direct), R5 (long-form essay anchor becomes voice anchor across the 9 post ideas), R9 (verb-led section headings).
When to run
- "Build my LinkedIn ICP" or "LinkedIn ICP and offer for [company/person]"
- "Who should I target on LinkedIn?" / "Create my LinkedIn offer proposition"
- "Optimize my offer for LinkedIn" / "Help me define my ideal client for LinkedIn content"
- "ICP + offer for [URL]"
Do NOT run when: user wants market-level ICP (/icp-research), behavioural buyer simulation (/icp-behavioural), to write a single post (/linkedin-content), profile optimization (/linkedin-profile-optimization), or competitive research (/competitor-research).
See the premium reference for full upstream/downstream wiring.
Inputs
Required
| Input | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Website URL | Company or personal website to research | User provides |
Optional (significantly improves quality)
| Input | How it helps |
|---|---|
| Personal experience notes | Direct answers to experiential questions (Q5, Q6, Q10, Q13, Q14) |
| Sales call notes / transcripts | Real language, objections, questions from buyers |
| Existing ICP docs | Validate or expand current understanding |
| Target LinkedIn audience | Who specifically they want to attract |
| Best client example | Description of their ideal collaboration |
| company-context output | Pre-existing company research from upstream skill |
If inputs are missing: ask for website URL at minimum. Strongly encourage personal experience notes — the more experiential input, the better the ICP quality.
Steps
- Phase 1 — Research & data gathering. Scrape website (Firecrawl), search external signals (Exa), load upstream context. → the premium reference
- Phase 2 — 14-question ICP. Answer all 14 questions to the quality standard, apply confidence markers, flag experiential questions for user validation. → the premium reference and the premium reference
- Phase 3 — Pains → Goals content guide. Extract 10-20 pain points from the 14 answers, mirror to goals, format as the canonical Guide table. → the premium reference
- Phase 4 — Offer distillation. List all services, identify the ONE offer (ROI × impact × fulfilment), produce two-part "What I do / What I market" statement. → the premium reference
- Phase 5 — SCART content brief. Populate the 5 SCART elements, generate 9 post ideas (3 story + 3 expertise + 3 offer), recommend posting frequency and format mix. → the premium reference and the premium reference
- Phase 6 — Ongoing ideation engine (optional). Layer Growth/Authority/Sales pillar split, 22-question ideation bank, posting schedule, repurposing cycle. → the premium reference
- Self-evaluation + review gate (Level 2). Run completeness, depth, honesty checks. → the premium reference
- Assemble final output in canonical format. → the premium reference
- Suggest chains:
linkedin-profile-optimization→linkedin-content→outreach-emails→positioning. → the premium reference
Visual flowchart of the full process: the premium reference. MCP tools and Exa research substrate: the premium reference.
What good looks like
Evaluations
The output passes when: all 14 ICP questions have 4-8 bullets or a rich paragraph; experiential questions Q5/Q6/Q10/Q13/Q14 carry [REQUIRES USER VALIDATION]; the Pains→Goals table has 10-20 specific pairs (not generic); ONE offer is identified with explicit ROI×impact×fulfilment rationale; all 5 SCART elements are populated; 9 post ideas exist (3 each for story/expertise/offer) tied to specific pain→goal pairs; no invented metrics, quotes, or testimonials; confidence markers applied consistently. Full checklist: 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.
Then run /voice-reviewer — the content ship gate: voice + brand quality (pm-loop.md).
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.