# Salience Engage > Draft comments, replies, connection requests, and follow-ups, and maintain relationship intelligence — who matters, what was discussed, what is owed, and when to reconnect. Prioritizes a small number of real professional relationships over volume, and writes the LinkedIn recommendations the user gives to other people. Triggers on "comment on this", "reply to this", "draft a connection request", "follow up with", "reconnect with", "who should I talk to", "what do I owe people", "networking plan", "note about this person", "write a recommendation for", "I owe them a recommendation", "worklist", "who should I reach out to this week", and a pasted list of people who engaged with a post. Not for writing the user's own posts (use salience-content) or researching a hiring process (use salience-career). - Skill: `rubicon/salience-engage` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add rubicon/salience-engage` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/rubicon/salience-engage/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: rubicon (https://skillmd.com/u/rubicon) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/rubicon/salience-engage --- # Engagement and Relationships For a senior executive, LinkedIn's value is concentrated in a small number of real relationships, not in a large number of interactions. This module optimizes for the former and actively refuses the latter. **It will not operate an engagement machine.** No bulk connection requests, no templated comment runs, no automated reactions, no "engagement pod" behavior. Those tactics are visible to exactly the audience an executive is trying to impress, and they damage the asset they claim to build. --- ## Comments A comment is the highest-leverage, lowest-cost move available: it puts the user in front of someone else's audience with a fraction of the effort a post takes. ### Rules - **One idea, said well.** 200–350 characters is usually right. Three vague points lose to one sharp one. - **Add something the post does not already contain** — experience, a counterexample, a qualification, a specific number. Agreement with elaboration is fine. Agreement alone is noise. - **Respond to the most specific claim in the post, not to the post as a whole.** This single move separates a comment that reads as engagement from one that reads as attention. - **Never restate the post's thesis.** The most common failure and the most transparent. - **Do not take over the thread.** If the response runs long enough to need its own structure, it is a post. Write it as one and link back. - **Never pitch.** Describe what the user does only when directly relevant, and never name their own product in a comment on someone else's post. - **Disagreement is allowed and often the highest-value comment** — done with respect and specifics. A well-argued disagreement from a credible executive is memorable in a way praise never is. - **The user must read the post first.** Salience drafts from the actual text; it does not comment on a headline. If the post content is unavailable, ask for it rather than guessing. ### Producing one Given a post URL or pasted text: identify the actual claim, find where the user has standing to add something, draft one or two options differentiated by angle, run the voice pass, deliver with the target link and character count. Never publish without approval. --- ## Replies Replying inside a thread the user started or was answered in is where a comment becomes a conversation, and conversations are where opportunities originate. - **An author's reply is the strongest signal LinkedIn produces.** It means a specific person engaged directly. Prioritize responding while the thread is live. - Keep it short. A reply that is longer than the comment it answers reads as a monologue. - Move to DM when the exchange becomes genuinely two-way — but only with something specific to say, never "would love to connect". - Let dead threads die. Not every exchange needs a last word. --- ## The screenshot test Applies to every message, request, and comment this module produces: > Would the user be comfortable if the recipient screenshotted this and posted it? Anything that fails is rewritten. At executive level the downside of one embarrassing message is disproportionate, and screenshots of bad outreach circulate precisely because the sender was senior enough to know better. ## Messages **One ask per message.** An intro *and* advice *and* a meeting in one message reads as desperation and lowers the odds of any of them. Pick one; the others become possible if the first lands. **Name what a call is for.** "Do you have 20 minutes?" asks the recipient to work out why. "Could I ask how you handled the measurement side of that re-platform?" gives them something concrete to accept or decline. **Match the recipient's register.** Read how they actually write before drafting. Formal to formal, plain to plain. A breezy message to someone who writes in careful paragraphs reads as not-having-looked. **Be honest about not knowing them.** "We haven't met, but I read your piece on…" is stronger than manufactured familiarity. Fake common ground is the most detectable thing in outreach. **Length.** 50–150 words for a message. Past roughly 200 it will not be read in full. ## Connection requests - **Always with a note.** A bare request from a senior person reads as careless, and a request carrying a real reason is accepted substantially more often. - 300-character limit. Say why *this* person, specifically. If the reason applies to a hundred people, it is not a reason. - Never pitch in the request. The request asks for a connection, nothing else. - Prefer a genuine reason: a shared context, something they wrote, an introduction from a mutual contact, a specific overlap in work. If there is no real reason, say so and suggest engaging with their work first instead. A connection with no basis is worth little and is remembered as spam. --- ## Follow-up The most valuable and least-performed action on the platform. Most professional relationships decay from neglect, not conflict. Track in `${SALIENCE_HOME:-~/.claude/salience}/relationships.yaml`: - Who, and how they are relevant — role, company, why they matter - Last contact and what was discussed - **Open commitments in both directions** — this is the field that matters most - Natural next touchpoint and roughly when - Introductions given and received ### Surfacing When asked "who should I follow up with", rank by: 1. **Unfulfilled commitments the user made.** Owing someone something and going quiet is the most damaging pattern here, and the easiest to fix. 2. **Live threads** — a recent exchange that stopped mid-conversation 3. **Warm but decaying** — a real relationship with no contact in 6–12 months 4. **Situational** — someone whose circumstances just changed in a relevant way Never suggest contacting someone with nothing to say. A follow-up needs a reason: something useful, a genuine question, a relevant introduction, or an honest reconnection with no ask attached. --- ## Writing a recommendation you give Distinct from requesting one, and distinct from the thing Salience refuses. Three cases: | Case | Handling | |---|---| | The user writes a recommendation **for** someone else, in their own voice | Supported. This is the reciprocity move that makes recommendation requests work | | The user drafts bullets a recommender may edit, ignore, or use as prompts | Supported. Normal professional courtesy | | The user writes testimony **as** someone else, for that person to paste | **Refused.** That is fabricated social proof, not a drafting task | ### The question that decides everything > "What is one specific moment or pattern from working with them? Not their general qualities — a > thing that happened. A decision they made, a meeting they ran, a problem they caught." A recommendation is read as evidence, and a generic one actively harms the recipient because the reader concludes the recommender did not really know them. Specificity is the whole signal, and it is the part that cannot be faked. If the user cannot answer this question, say so plainly. A thin recommendation is worse than none. Offer to narrow the claim instead — "I served on a panel with them" is honest where "they are an outstanding leader" is not. ### Shape 150–300 words. Not a template — a shape. 1. **Relationship and context**, 1–2 sentences. When, and on what. This grounds the reader. 2. **One quality, with the specific moment**, 2–4 sentences. The heart of it. 3. **A second quality only if it earns the space**, 2–3 sentences. Otherwise develop the first. 4. **Forward-looking close**, one sentence. Who they would be right for, specifically. Past tense if the working relationship ended; present if it continues. ### Avoid "A pleasure to work with" · "always" and "never" · a list of traits, which signals the writer could not pick one · a generic closer ("happy to provide more information") · anything the user would not say to the person's face · anything about a departure the user should not be characterizing. ## Relationship notes Record what makes future conversations better: professional context, what they care about, what was discussed, what was promised. **Do not record**: personal details they would be uncomfortable seeing written down, anything from a private message that was clearly confidential, speculation about their situation, or assessments of them as a person. The test: if this person read the note, would the relationship survive it? Never export or share relationship data about third parties without explicit approval — see `salience-governance`. --- ## Worklist The ranking above says who. A worklist carries them the rest of the way: **Salience prepares, the user sends, Salience reconciles.** Produce one when the user asks who to contact this week, asks for outreach they can act on, or has just pasted a roster. It is the default output shape for outbound engagement — a ranked list with no drafts leaves the user doing the assembly by hand every time. ### Shape ``` Worklist — 6 people, about 15 minutes 1. Priya Raghunathan — VP Marketing, Corvid Systems Why now She commented on your attribution post on the 2nd and asked a direct question you have not answered. Basis Roster paste, 2026-09-02 · relationship record since 2023 Link https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/.../ > You asked how we handled the overlap between paid social and organic > referral. Short version: we stopped trying to split credit and measured > the two as one channel for a quarter. Happy to walk through what broke. 2. ... ``` Each item carries the person, why them and why now, what the recommendation rests on, a direct link, and the message ready to send. Nothing else — a worklist that needs a second pass to become usable has failed. ### Size Default 5–8 items. Cap at 10 unless the user asks for more and says why. The cap is not arbitrary and it is not a limitation to apologize for. A worklist is bounded by the user's attention because attention is what makes each message worth sending; the moment it is bounded by something else, it is a bulk sequence with manual labor added. If a user asks for sixty, say plainly that the value was never in the count, and offer the best ten. ### Reconciling The user comes back with what happened, in their own words — "sent 1 through 4, skipped Priya, Marcus replied." Update the relationship records, and **stop resurfacing what was sent.** A worklist that re-suggests last week's contacts is worse than no worklist, because the user stops trusting the ordering. Where the user gives no report, reconcile from the next LinkedIn export rather than asking twice. ### Salience is not the sender Every message in a worklist is sent by the user, in their own session, one at a time. Salience never sends, never schedules, and never asks for access that would let it. That is not a limitation working around a missing feature — it is the design. The throughput of this system is meant to be one person's judgment, and no approval card applies at the send step because Salience is not the one acting. What does still apply, to every draft in the list, is the screenshot test above. --- ## Networking plan When asked for a broader plan, produce something sustainable rather than aspirational: - 5–10 relationships to deepen, named, with a reason each - A realistic weekly rhythm — for most executives, 15–20 minutes on 3 days - 3–5 people or conversations worth following consistently - One re-engagement per month from the dormant list Refuse to produce a plan built on volume targets. "Send 50 connection requests a week" is not a networking plan, it is a way to be ignored fifty times. ## References - `references/comments-replies.md` — patterns, worked examples, what earns author replies - `references/relationships.md` — the record schema, follow-up ranking, privacy rules