/write-longform

name: write-longform
description: |
  Use when user has an idea that genuinely needs 600+ words, wants to
  build a LinkedIn newsletter cadence, or wants a piece that lives
  permanently on their profile rather than in the feed. Trigger phrases
  include "write a LinkedIn article," "write a newsletter," "this needs
  to be long-form," "I have a lot to say about this," or when a
  find-ideas seed is marked "Best fit for: write-longform."
license: MIT

Write longform

LinkedIn long-form content is genuinely different from a 1,300-character feed post. The pacing is different, the rhythm is different, the relationship with the reader is different. This skill exists to write articles and newsletters that hold a reader's attention for 600 to 2,000 words, in the user's voice, without the slop patterns that work poorly even in long form.

Why this skill exists

LinkedIn is investing heavily in long-form content. Newsletters in particular get their own distribution mechanism: subscribers receive push notifications and email when a new issue is published, which sidesteps the main feed's ranking algorithm entirely. Articles get separate distribution from posts, persist on the user's profile, and tend to be the format that hiring managers and prospects actually read when checking someone out.

But long-form is harder than short-form. A weak feed post is forgettable. A weak article is embarrassing because the reader committed real time to it. This skill exists to make sure the time investment pays off for the reader.

When to use this skill

Trigger when:

• The seed from find-ideas is marked write-longform
• The user has a topic with multiple sub-points that need real development
• The user is building a newsletter cadence
• The user wants something for their profile that says "I have thought about this seriously"
• The user has a body of work (multiple posts, internal docs, talks) they want to consolidate

Do NOT trigger when:

• The content is a single point. Send to write-post.
• The content has visual or sequential structure. Send to build-carousel.
• The content is a quick reaction or update. Long-form is the wrong format for hot takes.

What you need from the user

1. The angle and the position the piece will argue. 2. The underlying material (notes, related posts, an outline, a transcript, a doc). 3. Article or newsletter? Newsletter has subscribers and recurring framing; article is one-off. 4. Target length. Default: 800-1,200 words for articles, 600-800 for newsletter issues. Adjust on user request.

If voice-profile.md exists, read it.

How long-form works in 2026

A LinkedIn article or newsletter that works has four traits:

**1. A real claim, not a survey.** The piece argues something. "Five trends in B2B SaaS" is not a piece; it is a list of trends. "B2B SaaS is undervaluing customer success because it confuses retention with renewal" is a piece. The claim should be specific enough that someone could disagree with it.

**2. Earns the time investment.** Every paragraph should be earning the reader's next paragraph. If a paragraph could be cut without losing the argument, cut it. Length is not a virtue.

**3. Specific, anchored evidence.** Numbers, examples, named cases, quotes. Long-form fails when it tries to substitute eloquence for evidence. The reader committed time; they want to come away with something concrete.

**4. A point of view, not a survey of points of view.** "On one hand X, on the other hand Y, the truth is probably somewhere in between" is the worst possible long-form pattern. Take a side. Acknowledge the opposing view in one paragraph and then defend yours.

Structure

Long-form benefits from sub-headers more than feed posts do. The reader can navigate. The piece feels less like a wall of text. Use 3-5 sub-headers for an 800-word piece, 5-8 for a 1,500-word piece.

A common structure that works (do not treat as a template; the piece should serve the argument):

1. **Open with the claim and the moment that produced it.** First paragraph names the argument. Second paragraph anchors it to a specific moment, story, or piece of evidence. If you do not anchor by paragraph two, the reader leaves.

2. **The opposing view, fairly.** One paragraph. State the strongest version of the position you are arguing against. This is what separates a real piece from a strawman piece.

3. **Why you think the opposing view is wrong.** This is the heart of the article. Make the actual argument. Use specific evidence. Name the names you can name, cite the numbers you have.

4. **Where you might be wrong.** One paragraph acknowledging the limits of your claim. This is what separates a confident piece from an arrogant piece.

5. **What follows from the claim.** What should the reader do, think, or stop doing? Concrete, not "consider the implications."

6. **Close.** A single paragraph that lands the argument. No CTA, or a CTA that is genuinely useful (subscribe to the newsletter, read a related piece, share their counterexample).

Newsletter-specific notes

Newsletters have subscribers who chose to receive them. This changes the writing in three ways:

1. **You can assume context.** Subscribers have read previous issues. You can reference them. "Last issue I argued X. Today I want to take that further." 2. **You can be more conversational.** The reader opted in; they are not a stranger. 3. **You have a name and a cadence to honor.** Each issue should fit the newsletter's premise. If the newsletter is "Notes from an early-stage PM," every issue should fit that frame.

For a first newsletter issue, set the premise. What is the newsletter about, how often does it publish, what kind of pieces should the reader expect.

How to draft

1. Read voice-profile.md. 2. Identify the claim. If the user did not state it clearly, ask: "What is the one sentence you would defend if pushed? That's the article." 3. Build a 3-5 sub-header outline before writing prose. Send it to the user