feat(linkedin-studio): N23 — positioning-brief-motor (generering + konsum) [skip-docs]

Persistert posisjonering som alle drafts bindes mot. Innplassert i
/linkedin:setup (Step 3g) etter operatør-friksjonskriteriet — setup eier
allerede ${DATA}/profile/ og har menyen; telling forblir 30.

- config/positioning-brief.template.md (NY): fire seksjoner (Who I am ·
  Who this is for · What I hold · How I differ), hver med _Evidence:_-linje.
- setup.md Step 3g: DELEGERER til linkedin-studio:strategy-advisor.
  Brain-konsum-blokken forblir i én kopi (N21-lærdommen), lint-håndhevet.
- strategy-advisor.md: distillasjonen, kildepresedens, anti-flatteri
  (What I hold må bære påstander en leser kan være UENIG i) og
  evidensgulv ([insufficient evidence] framfor plausibel oppfinnelse).
- Distillat, ikke andre profil: briefen REFERERER user-profile.md framfor
  å gjenta den. Operatørens deklarasjon og daterte anker slår maskinens
  inferens; motstrid rapporteres som spenning, aldri stille anvendt.
- Konsum: post/quick/batch + newsletter Step 1 + differentiation-checker
  (scorer originalitet mot How I differ, ikke generisk nyhet).
- Regenerering er operatør-gatet: explicit go + seksjonsvis diff + aldri
  stille overskriving av operatørens egne redigeringer.

Lint: Section 16y, 17 nye ubetingede sjekker (self-test 1 akseptert /
4 underspesifiserte avvist). Floor 251 → 268. Alle ti suiter grønne:
test-runner 270→287/0 · trends 300 · analytics 202 · hooks 191 · brain 134
· editions 72 · render 63 · specifics-bank 45 · tests 35 · contract-gate 33.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AbwkH8phPsgv9xFd8Qbq7E

commands/batch.md

@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ Load state and personalization:
 - Read `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/linkedin-studio/SKILL.md` for profile and preferences
 - Check `${LINKEDIN_STUDIO_DATA:-$HOME/.claude/linkedin-studio}/plans/` for existing weekly plan
 - Read `${LINKEDIN_STUDIO_DATA:-$HOME/.claude/linkedin-studio}/templates/my-post-templates.md` for proven templates — vary templates across the batch for format diversity
+- Read `${LINKEDIN_STUDIO_DATA:-$HOME/.claude/linkedin-studio}/profile/positioning-brief.md` — the week's posts must add up to one position, not five unrelated takes. Use **What I hold** to keep the batch arguing from the same stance, and **How I differ** as the check on the plan as a whole: if the week could have been produced by any account in the niche, revise the plan before writing. Absent file: proceed silently
 
 If a plan exists for this week, use it as the foundation. If not, create one first.
 

commands/newsletter.md

@@ -341,6 +341,16 @@ Establish the edition brief with **at most ~3 calibration questions**. Infer
 everything you can from Step 0 (series brief, STATE.md, prior edition); only ask
 what genuinely changes the work.
 
+**Read the positioning brief first** —
+`${LINKEDIN_STUDIO_DATA:-$HOME/.claude/linkedin-studio}/profile/positioning-brief.md`.
+A long-form edition is the format where a missing position shows most: 1,500 words of
+competent survey that takes no stance is the failure mode. Use **What I hold** to fix
+what this edition *argues* (not merely covers) and **How I differ** as the brief-level
+test — if the edition as briefed could carry another author's byline unchanged, the
+angle is not yet an angle. Where the brief and the operator's stated brief for THIS
+edition disagree, the operator wins; note the tension in one line rather than quietly
+steering to the file. Absent file: proceed silently on the other sources.
+
 > **Trend intake (optional bridge — N7).** If this edition is being started from a
 > `/linkedin:trends` candidate — the operator supplies a **trend id** (shown in the
 > trends brief and via `CLI list --json`, where

commands/post.md

@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ Check weekly progress:
 
 Check for existing assets:
 - `${LINKEDIN_STUDIO_DATA:-$HOME/.claude/linkedin-studio}/voice-samples/` - Match the user's natural voice
+- `${LINKEDIN_STUDIO_DATA:-$HOME/.claude/linkedin-studio}/profile/positioning-brief.md` - What the user stands for and how they differ. Write the angle AGAINST this: the "How I differ" section is the test for whether this post could have been written by anyone else on the topic. Absent file: proceed silently (nothing to anchor on yet).
 - `${LINKEDIN_STUDIO_DATA:-$HOME/.claude/linkedin-studio}/examples/high-engagement-posts.md` - Study past successful posts and replicable patterns
 - `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/assets/frameworks/framework-template.md` - Reference user's documented frameworks for framework posts
 - `${LINKEDIN_STUDIO_DATA:-$HOME/.claude/linkedin-studio}/templates/my-post-templates.md` - User's proven post templates with success rates. **Prefer these over generic structures.**

commands/quick.md

@@ -37,6 +37,12 @@ Read `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/linkedin-studio/SKILL.md` for:
 - Core expertise areas (for topical alignment)
 - Phrases they commonly use
 
+Read `${LINKEDIN_STUDIO_DATA:-$HOME/.claude/linkedin-studio}/profile/positioning-brief.md` for:
+- **What I hold** — the positions to argue from, so a 5-minute post still says something the
+  user actually believes rather than something generically true
+- **How I differ** — the one-line test before you present the draft: could any other account
+  in this niche have posted this? Absent file: proceed silently.
+
 Read `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/assets/quick-post-resources.md` for:
 - Hooks bank
 - CTAs bank

commands/setup.md

@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ Use AskUserQuestion:
 
 **What would you like to set up?**
 
-Options (always show all 7):
+Options (always show all 8):
 
 1. **Voice samples** -- Paste 3-5 of your best posts so I can analyze your writing voice
 2. **Case study** -- Walk through a guided interview to document a real case study
@@ -75,7 +75,8 @@ Options (always show all 7):
 4. **Post analysis** -- Add your high-engagement posts with metrics for pattern analysis
 5. **Demographics** -- Guide you through LinkedIn Analytics to capture audience demographics
 6. **User profile** -- Set up your personalization profile (name, expertise, goals, voice)
-7. **Show score details** -- See detailed breakdown of what's missing in each category
+7. **Positioning brief** -- Distil what you stand for and how you differ, so every draft is written against it
+8. **Show score details** -- See detailed breakdown of what's missing in each category
 
 Based on their answer, run the corresponding sub-workflow below.
 
@@ -346,6 +347,29 @@ Guide through each section of the profile:
 
 **Important:** This file is gitignored (`.local.md` pattern), so personal data stays private.
 
+## Step 3g: Positioning Brief
+
+**Goal:** Distil `${LINKEDIN_STUDIO_DATA:-$HOME/.claude/linkedin-studio}/profile/positioning-brief.md` — the stance-and-difference layer every drafting surface reads before it writes.
+
+This step **delegates**. Do not read the second brain yourself and do not restate its consumption rules here: invoke the agent that already owns them.
+
+1. **Check what exists first.** Read the current `${LINKEDIN_STUDIO_DATA:-$HOME/.claude/linkedin-studio}/profile/positioning-brief.md` if present, and note whether it carries operator edits (`## Provenance` → "Operator edits since generation").
+
+2. **Invoke the distiller** via `Task` with `subagent_type: linkedin-studio:strategy-advisor`, asking it to distil the positioning brief. It reads `brain/profile.md`, `brain/operations.md`, `profile/user-profile.md` and the published corpus, and shapes the result on `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/config/positioning-brief.template.md`.
+
+3. **First run (no brief exists):** show the four distilled sections, ask for corrections, then write the file.
+
+4. **Regeneration (a brief already exists):** this is **operator-gated**.
+   - Present a **diff**, section by section, of the proposed distillation against the current file.
+   - Ask for an **explicit go** per section — "keep mine / take the new one / merge".
+   - **Never overwrite** the existing brief wholesale, and never discard an operator edit because the distillation disagrees with it. Positioning is the operator's own; the machine's read of it is a proposal.
+
+5. **Thin evidence is reported, not filled.** Sections the agent marks `[insufficient evidence — operator input needed]` stay marked. Offer to interview the operator for that section instead — an invented differentiator would propagate into every post written against the brief.
+
+6. **If there is no brain yet** the agent will say there is **no brief yet** — point the user at options 1 (voice samples) and 6 (user profile) first, and exit this step without writing a placeholder file.
+
+**Important:** This file lives in the per-user data dir, survives reinstalls, and is read by `/linkedin:post`, `/linkedin:quick`, `/linkedin:batch`, `/linkedin:newsletter` Step 1 and the `differentiation-checker`.
+
 ## Step 4: Recalculate Score
 
 After completing any sub-workflow: