analyze-performance
Use when user has been posting on LinkedIn at least 4 weeks and wants to know what is landing, run a quarterly content review, or diagnose dropping engagement.…
Use when user wants to leave a substantive comment on someone else's LinkedIn post, reply to comments on their own posts, get a batch of comment templates for engaging with their network, or use commenting as their primary growth strategy. Trigger phrases include "write a
$ npx -y skills add warpirate/linkedin-maxxing --skill write-comment --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/write-commentContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Use when user wants to leave a substantive comment on someone else's LinkedIn post, reply to comments on their own posts, get a batch of comment templates for engaging with their network, or use commenting as their primary growth strategy. Trigger phrases include "write a
name: write-comment description: | Use when user wants to leave a substantive comment on someone else's LinkedIn post, reply to comments on their own posts, get a batch of comment templates for engaging with their network, or use commenting as their primary growth strategy. Trigger phrases include "write a comment on this post," "how should I reply to this," "help me engage with my feed," or when user pastes a post URL or text and asks what to say. license: MIT
LinkedIn's 2026 ranking system treats comments as the highest-weight engagement signal, but only when the comment has substance. "Great post!" used to count. It does not anymore. This skill exists to write comments that actually add something to the thread, in the user's voice, in a way that earns the algorithm's attention without sounding like an engagement farmer.
Three reasons comments are now the highest-impact move on LinkedIn:
1. Comments count for roughly 15x the weight of a like in ranking. AuthoredUp's 2025 analysis put the gap more conservatively at 2x, but every credible source agrees comments dominate likes.
2. LinkedIn's NLP-aware comment scoring downranks generic responses ("Great post!") and upranks specific questions, personal experience, and professional insight. The same comment-length sentence can earn 10x the algorithm signal depending on its content.
3. Comments put the user's profile in front of the post author's audience, not just the user's own followers. This is how you grow.
So the comment is not just polite engagement. It is content in its own right, and the rules for writing it are the same rules as for writing a post: be specific, be honest, match your voice.
Trigger when:
Do NOT trigger when:
The post they want to comment on. Either pasted text, a URL (you can ask them to paste the visible text since URLs do not always fetch reliably), or a description of the post and who wrote it.
Also useful (ask only if not obvious):
If voice-profile.md exists, read it.
A good LinkedIn comment is between 30 and 200 words. Long enough to add something. Short enough that someone reads it.
Three types of comments that get the algorithm's attention and feel real:
1. **Add a specific detail or counter-example.** "We tried this. The thing that surprised us was [specific]." This is the strongest type. It positions the user as someone who has done the thing, and the specific is what makes the comment dwell-worthy.
2. **Ask a sharp question that opens a thread.** Not "What do you think?" but "Did you find that X happens here too, or only when Y?" The question has to be specific enough that the author has to think about the answer.
3. **Honest disagreement.** "I read it differently. I have seen the opposite play out at [scale or context]." This works only when the user actually disagrees and can back it up. Performative disagreement reads worse than agreement.
What does not work:
Read the post carefully. Find the most specific or interesting claim in it. The comment should respond to that claim, not to the post as a whole.
Then draft in the user's voice (using voice-profile.md). The comment should sound like the user, not like a generic LinkedIn engager. If the user is direct, be direct. If the user opens with confessions, open with one.
If the user disagrees with the post, say so honestly. Comments that politely push back tend to earn the most attention and the most respect.
Output must read as written by a human on the first pass. The constraints below are how you write, not a checklist to apply later. Do not narrate this process to the user. Do not show a "before humanizer / after humanizer" sequence. Just produce clean output.
**Hard bans — never appear in output:**
17 Claude Code skills + slash commands for substance-first LinkedIn growth. Profile audit, content drafting (posts, carousels, longform, video, DMs, comments), performance analysis, and a Wikipedia-based humanizer. Anti-template, anti-slop, open source, MIT.
Use when user has been posting on LinkedIn at least 4 weeks and wants to know what is landing, run a quarterly content review, or diagnose dropping engagement.…
Use when user wants to diagnose their current LinkedIn profile before rewriting it: they have not touched it in a while, get few profile views or recruiter…
Use when user has an idea with multiple discrete steps, a framework, a comparison, a before/after, a list of items worth a slide each, or anything where…
Use when user wants to post on LinkedIn but has no concrete idea, has a vague topic that needs a sharper angle, or uploads a work artifact (PR description,…
Use when editing or reviewing text that reads as AI-generated: symptoms include em dashes, "it's not X, it's Y" constructions, AI vocabulary (leverage, delve,…
Use when user wants to think strategically about LinkedIn content rather than post-by-post: starting a LinkedIn presence from scratch, posting feels scattered…