feat(linkedin-studio): de-niche rest-sweep — vary KTG-beat examples across surfaces (B-S2b) [skip-docs]
The last de-niche slice: recast the 10 sites where the vendor/sector beat (Microsoft|Azure|Copilot|public sector) sat as the PRIVILEGED/default example, varying each to a concrete cross-domain example instead of sterilizing (plugin-is-domain-general — domain comes from user config, never hardcoded). Recast (10): url-processing-templates (news worked-example Copilot->Figma), opportunity-generation (3 headline examples + About block -> varied/ops persona), profile (3 "good example" headlines/impact -> healthcare/e-commerce/support), first-comment-strategy (drop "Microsoft" from research-paper example), poll-strategy-guide (Copilot option -> generic AI assistants), engagement-frameworks (1 of 3 direct-address audiences -> RevOps/SaaS), setup (audience e.g. -> two varied examples), post (invocation e.g. -> SaaS pricing), network-builder (tagline example -> ops/manufacturing), video-scripter (2 filename slugs -> neutral topics). Kept as false positives (would sterilize): content-angles.md (Public Sector is 1 of 6 balanced industry tables + Industry-Agnostic section), outreach.md (Microsoft Build/Ignite/Azure UG = 3 of ~20 varied real conferences), linkedin-growth-playbook (biographical fact in a real case study), the Gemini/Tavily/Perplexity MCP tool-name examples, and the algorithm-signals "Gemini provenance" SSOT citation. AI-as-topic kept (not a niche token; the de-AI/AI-slop mechanic is the plugin's legit subject). Gate scripts/test-runner.sh 87/0/0 (no lint touches these files yet; §17-guard extension to content-planner is the deferred next step). 10 files, 26/26. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01RBMKqPSVbvSZHtQ4heM1UY
This commit is contained in:
parent
94d4e707db
commit
e75cd42bed
10 changed files with 26 additions and 26 deletions
|
|
@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ Profile networking signals:
|
|||
|
||||
Headline:
|
||||
Include: What you do + Who you help + Signal (e.g., "Open to collabs")
|
||||
Example: "AI Advisor @ [org] | Helping public sector adopt AI | Speaker & Writer"
|
||||
Example: "Ops Lead @ [org] | Helping manufacturers cut downtime | Speaker & Writer"
|
||||
|
||||
About section:
|
||||
Last paragraph should include:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -214,8 +214,8 @@ Naming convention:
|
|||
video-[YYYY-MM-DD]-[slug]-[type]-[length].md
|
||||
|
||||
Examples:
|
||||
video-2026-01-30-ai-implementation-talking-head-90s.md
|
||||
video-2026-01-30-copilot-demo-screen-recording-60s.md
|
||||
video-2026-01-30-onboarding-walkthrough-talking-head-90s.md
|
||||
video-2026-01-30-dashboard-demo-screen-recording-60s.md
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Update state in `~/.claude/linkedin-studio.local.md`:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ Check for existing assets:
|
|||
|
||||
## Step 1: Understand the Input
|
||||
|
||||
If the user already provided a clear topic with the command invocation (e.g., `/linkedin:post about AI governance in public sector`), skip asking and proceed directly. Only ask if the input is missing or genuinely vague.
|
||||
If the user already provided a clear topic with the command invocation (e.g., `/linkedin:post about pricing strategy for B2B SaaS`), skip asking and proceed directly. Only ask if the input is missing or genuinely vague.
|
||||
|
||||
Identify the type of raw material:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ search. Optimize for both.
|
|||
in every search result and connection suggestion, and renders under your name
|
||||
across the site — so it does the most SEO work per character. Lead with the plain
|
||||
words people actually search (the role, the domain, the audience), not a clever
|
||||
tagline. "AI Advisor · public-sector AI governance · Microsoft Copilot" is more
|
||||
tagline. "Data Engineer · healthcare analytics · HIPAA-compliant pipelines" is more
|
||||
findable than "Turning chaos into clarity ✨".
|
||||
|
||||
**Per-section keyword targets** (place the terms a searcher would type, in the
|
||||
|
|
@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ Guide the user through each section using AskUserQuestion for interactive feedba
|
|||
- [ ] No jargon or vague titles
|
||||
|
||||
**Strong example:**
|
||||
"Helping public sector leaders implement AI that actually works | AI Advisor @ [Company]"
|
||||
"Helping e-commerce teams turn returns data into retention | Retention Strategist @ [Company]"
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak example:**
|
||||
"Digital Transformation Expert | Thought Leader | Speaker"
|
||||
|
|
@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ Guide the user through each section using AskUserQuestion for interactive feedba
|
|||
**Transform each role with impact statements, not task lists.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Bad:** "Responsible for AI initiatives"
|
||||
**Good:** "Deployed first Copilot Studio agent handling 40% of internal inquiries"
|
||||
**Good:** "Cut customer-support response time 40% by automating tier-1 triage"
|
||||
|
||||
**Ask the user:** Describe your current role's key achievements with numbers/impact.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ Guide through each section of the profile:
|
|||
- "These should be topics you can consistently create content about for 90+ days"
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Target audience:**
|
||||
- "Who is your primary audience? (e.g., 'Public sector leaders exploring AI')"
|
||||
- "Who is your primary audience? (e.g., 'CFOs at mid-size SaaS companies' or 'public-sector IT leaders')"
|
||||
- "Secondary audience?"
|
||||
- "Geographic focus?"
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ Pattern: Set a scene that resonates
|
|||
|
||||
**10. The Direct Address**
|
||||
Pattern: Speak directly to a specific audience
|
||||
- "If you're an AI leader in the public sector, we need to talk."
|
||||
- "If you run RevOps at a B2B SaaS company, we need to talk."
|
||||
- "To everyone implementing AI right now: Pause and read this."
|
||||
- "Fellow AI advisors: Are we being honest about timelines?"
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ Key takeaway: [1-sentence summary of why it's worth clicking]
|
|||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Here's the Microsoft research paper I mentioned:
|
||||
Here's the research paper I mentioned:
|
||||
[URL]
|
||||
|
||||
Key takeaway: They found that AI assistants improve developer productivity by 26% — but only when the developer already understands the fundamentals.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -66,9 +66,9 @@ Your profile is your landing page. Optimize for the opportunities you want.
|
|||
**Structure:** [Identity] + [Value Proposition] + [Social Proof or Specificity]
|
||||
|
||||
**Examples:**
|
||||
- "AI Implementation Advisor | Helping public sector leaders deploy AI without the hype | 50+ projects delivered"
|
||||
- "Low-Code AI Architect | Building practical AI solutions | Former Microsoft, now independent"
|
||||
- "AI Strategy Consultant | Translating AI hype into business value | Speaker, Author"
|
||||
- "Supply-Chain Analytics Lead | Helping retailers cut stockouts without bloating inventory | 50+ rollouts delivered"
|
||||
- "Cloud Cost Architect | Building practical FinOps for scale-ups | Former Stripe, now independent"
|
||||
- "B2B Growth Consultant | Translating marketing spend into qualified pipeline | Speaker, Author"
|
||||
|
||||
**What to include:**
|
||||
- What you do (clearly)
|
||||
|
|
@ -105,21 +105,21 @@ Your profile is your landing page. Optimize for the opportunities you want.
|
|||
|
||||
**Example section:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
I help public sector leaders implement AI that actually works.
|
||||
I help operations leaders turn messy processes into measurable results.
|
||||
|
||||
After leading AI projects at [Organization] for 5 years, I saw the same pattern:
|
||||
organizations spending millions on AI that never delivered value. Now I help
|
||||
After leading improvement projects at [Organization] for 5 years, I saw the same pattern:
|
||||
organizations spending heavily on tools that never delivered value. Now I help
|
||||
leaders avoid those expensive mistakes.
|
||||
|
||||
What I do:
|
||||
→ AI strategy development for public sector organizations
|
||||
→ Process and workflow strategy for operations teams
|
||||
→ Vendor-neutral technology advisory
|
||||
→ Implementation oversight and quality assurance
|
||||
|
||||
Who I help:
|
||||
→ C-suite executives evaluating AI investments
|
||||
→ Department heads responsible for AI projects
|
||||
→ IT leaders managing AI implementations
|
||||
→ C-suite executives evaluating major investments
|
||||
→ Department heads responsible for transformation projects
|
||||
→ Team leaders managing rollouts
|
||||
|
||||
Track record:
|
||||
→ 50+ AI projects delivered
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ Hot take: Most "AI strategies" are just PowerPoint decks.
|
|||
```
|
||||
If you could only invest in ONE AI capability this year:
|
||||
|
||||
○ Copilot for productivity
|
||||
○ Off-the-shelf AI assistants
|
||||
○ Custom AI agents
|
||||
○ Data platform modernization
|
||||
○ AI literacy training for all staff
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -37,22 +37,22 @@ Comment #1: [Link to original article]
|
|||
|
||||
**Example transformation:**
|
||||
|
||||
Source: "Microsoft announces new Copilot pricing tiers"
|
||||
Source: "Figma announces new pricing tiers"
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
The new Copilot pricing isn't about the money. It's about strategy.
|
||||
The new Figma pricing isn't about the money. It's about strategy.
|
||||
|
||||
Microsoft just restructured their Copilot licensing. Most headlines focus on the $30/user price point.
|
||||
Figma just restructured its licensing. Most headlines focus on the per-seat price point.
|
||||
|
||||
Here's what they're missing:
|
||||
|
||||
The real story is differentiation. By splitting Copilot into tiers, Microsoft is:
|
||||
The real story is differentiation. By splitting its plans into tiers, Figma is:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Creating an upgrade path (land and expand)
|
||||
2. Protecting high-margin enterprise deals
|
||||
3. Addressing the "too expensive for testing" problem
|
||||
|
||||
For organizations evaluating Copilot, this changes the conversation from "can we afford it?" to "which tier makes sense?"
|
||||
For organizations evaluating Figma, this changes the conversation from "can we afford it?" to "which tier makes sense?"
|
||||
|
||||
My prediction: Expect competitors to follow with similar tiered models within 6 months.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue