Claude LinkedIn Post Writer Prompt
You are a LinkedIn content strategist who has grown multiple professional accounts to 100K+ followers.
Category
📱 Social Media
Difficulty
Intermediate
Models
3
Last Updated
2026-06-28
Works with
📄 Example output
⚠️ Common Mistakes
❓ FAQ
⚙️ Fill in your variables
📋 Prompt
You are a LinkedIn content strategist who has grown multiple professional accounts to 100K+ followers.
Topic: [post topic]
Insight: [professional insight — your unique take on this]
Audience: [audience — job function, industry, seniority level]
Outcome: [desired outcome — connections/leads/job offers/brand awareness]
Task: Write 3 LinkedIn post variations:
Each post format:
- Hook (first line visible before 'see more' — must compel the click)
- Body (short paragraphs, white space between every paragraph)
- CTA
- NO hashtags (LinkedIn's algorithm treats them as spam in 2026)
POST 1 — The Unpopular Opinion:
[Counterintuitive first line]
[Contrarian take with evidence/reasoning]
[Acknowledge the nuance]
[Invite debate]
POST 2 — Personal Story + Lesson:
[Specific story moment opening]
[Narrative arc]
[The lesson]
[How it applies to the reader]
POST 3 — Insight List:
[Bold opening statement]
[N things I've learned about X:]
[Arrow-format insights]
[Question at end]
LinkedIn formatting: Short paragraphs. White space. Bold the key insight (using * in LinkedIn).
Topic: [post topic]
Insight: [professional insight — your unique take on this]
Audience: [audience — job function, industry, seniority level]
Outcome: [desired outcome — connections/leads/job offers/brand awareness]
Task: Write 3 LinkedIn post variations:
Each post format:
- Hook (first line visible before 'see more' — must compel the click)
- Body (short paragraphs, white space between every paragraph)
- CTA
- NO hashtags (LinkedIn's algorithm treats them as spam in 2026)
POST 1 — The Unpopular Opinion:
[Counterintuitive first line]
[Contrarian take with evidence/reasoning]
[Acknowledge the nuance]
[Invite debate]
POST 2 — Personal Story + Lesson:
[Specific story moment opening]
[Narrative arc]
[The lesson]
[How it applies to the reader]
POST 3 — Insight List:
[Bold opening statement]
[N things I've learned about X:]
[Arrow-format insights]
[Question at end]
LinkedIn formatting: Short paragraphs. White space. Bold the key insight (using * in LinkedIn).
POST 1 (Unpopular opinion):
95% of people optimise their LinkedIn profile for recruiters.
That's why 95% of people don't get the LinkedIn results they want.
Your LinkedIn profile is not a digital resume. It's a sales page.
And the buyer isn't the recruiter who's reviewing 200 profiles today. The buyer is the decision-maker who Googles your name after someone refers you — and who you need to trust you instantly, with zero context.
I've helped 40+ executives rewrite their profiles with this frame. The results aren't modest:
→ 3x increase in meaningful inbound messages
→ Speaking opportunities
→ Board positions
→ Strategic partnerships
None of them went back to 'resume style' after seeing the difference.
Are you writing your profile for the recruiter, or for the decision-maker who matters most?
[Expected performance: 8,000–25,000 impressions if posted by an active account in professional services]
POST 2 (Personal story):
I once lost a £200,000 client in a 90-second phone call.
I was presenting our proposal. I opened with our company history, our awards, our team size.
The client stopped me at 90 seconds: 'I know all this. What I don't know is how you're going to solve my problem.'
I had spent 3 weeks on the proposal and 45 seconds on the actual problem.
That call changed how I structure every client conversation. I now spend the first 70% of every initial meeting asking questions and restating their problem — before I say a single word about my solution.
The close rate went from 40% to 68%. The £200K client? We won the next RFP.
Most pitches fail not because the solution is wrong. They fail because the problem wasn't made real enough first.
What's the most valuable mistake you've made in client work?
95% of people optimise their LinkedIn profile for recruiters.
That's why 95% of people don't get the LinkedIn results they want.
Your LinkedIn profile is not a digital resume. It's a sales page.
And the buyer isn't the recruiter who's reviewing 200 profiles today. The buyer is the decision-maker who Googles your name after someone refers you — and who you need to trust you instantly, with zero context.
I've helped 40+ executives rewrite their profiles with this frame. The results aren't modest:
→ 3x increase in meaningful inbound messages
→ Speaking opportunities
→ Board positions
→ Strategic partnerships
None of them went back to 'resume style' after seeing the difference.
Are you writing your profile for the recruiter, or for the decision-maker who matters most?
[Expected performance: 8,000–25,000 impressions if posted by an active account in professional services]
POST 2 (Personal story):
I once lost a £200,000 client in a 90-second phone call.
I was presenting our proposal. I opened with our company history, our awards, our team size.
The client stopped me at 90 seconds: 'I know all this. What I don't know is how you're going to solve my problem.'
I had spent 3 weeks on the proposal and 45 seconds on the actual problem.
That call changed how I structure every client conversation. I now spend the first 70% of every initial meeting asking questions and restating their problem — before I say a single word about my solution.
The close rate went from 40% to 68%. The £200K client? We won the next RFP.
Most pitches fail not because the solution is wrong. They fail because the problem wasn't made real enough first.
What's the most valuable mistake you've made in client work?
🏆
💡 Pro Tips
Best model for this prompt
Claude
Claude (Opus 4 / Sonnet 4)
Your first line is visible in the feed without clicking 'see more' — write it to work as a standalone statement that creates curiosity
LinkedIn rewards posts that generate saves and deep engagement more than posts that just get likes — write for quality of engagement
Share real outcomes with specific numbers — 'significantly improved' is worth 10% as much as 'improved by 68%'
Reply to every comment within 2 hours of posting — LinkedIn's algorithm weighs comments heavily and your replies count as engagement too
Using hashtags in 2026 — LinkedIn's algorithm has deprioritised hashtag-driven discovery; they add no reach
Starting with 'I'm excited to announce...' — this is the corporate equivalent of 'I hope this email finds you well'
Posting without a clear point of view — the most-shared LinkedIn content is opinionated, not neutral
Cross-posting Twitter content without reformatting — Twitter's sentence structure doesn't work on LinkedIn and vice versa
- How often should I post on LinkedIn?3–5 times per week is the sweet spot for growth. Below 2x/week and the algorithm barely shows your content. Above 7x/week and quality typically drops. Consistency over frequency.
- Does LinkedIn favour certain types of content?LinkedIn's algorithm in 2026 favours: content that generates comments (especially long comments), content that gets shared to feed, and content with 'dwell time' (people spend time reading). Personal stories outperform promotional content by 3–5x.
- Should I use LinkedIn newsletters?LinkedIn newsletters build a subscriber list that gets notified per publication — this is a significant advantage over regular posts. For authority content that goes beyond 500 words, newsletters are worth the additional effort.
- Can Claude write better LinkedIn posts than ChatGPT?Claude is generally stronger for LinkedIn — it writes with more nuance, avoids generic corporate language, and better understands the professional register of the platform. Claude Sonnet 4 is particularly good for personal-story format posts.