Writes LinkedIn posts to frame published articles, investigations, or media projects as thought leadership, driving clicks and credibility.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/autopunk-media-skills:linkedin-post-writerThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Writes a professional LinkedIn post that frames a published article, investigation, or media project as a thought-leadership moment — driving clicks while positioning the author as a credible voice in their field.
Writes a professional LinkedIn post that frames a published article, investigation, or media project as a thought-leadership moment — driving clicks while positioning the author as a credible voice in their field.
Required: The headline or title of the piece · A two- or three-sentence summary of what the story is about · The core finding, argument, or reveal (the one thing readers should take away) · The URL or publication name · Your tone preference: authoritative, personal/reflective, or conversational
Optional: A striking statistic or quote from the piece · Target audience (e.g., policy professionals, media executives, investors) · Whether to include a call-to-action beyond the link · Character limit if your organization enforces one
180–280 words. Three to five short paragraphs. Ends with a link placeholder and up to three relevant hashtags. Written in plain, confident professional English — no jargon, no hyperbole, no buzzwords ("game-changing", "exciting journey"). Tone matches the seriousness of the subject matter.
Headline: Inside the Backlog: How Thousands of Safety Complaints Against Consumer Products Go Unreviewed for Years Summary: A data investigation showing that a major national product safety agency has an internal review queue of more than 14,000 unresolved consumer complaints, some dating back six years. Agency staff say they lack resources; the agency disputes that characterisation. Core finding: The median complaint about a product later recalled for injury risk sat in the queue for 28 months before review — more than twice the agency's own stated target. Publication: Northgate Review Tone: Authoritative Optional: Statistic (28 months median wait), audience is policy and regulatory professionals
A product is flagged as dangerous. A complaint is filed. Then it sits.
Our data investigation at Northgate Review found that the median safety complaint about a consumer product later recalled for causing injury waited 28 months in a national agency's internal review queue before anyone examined it — more than twice the agency's own stated target. At the time of publication, the queue held over 14,000 unresolved complaints, some dating back six years.
The agency told us it disputes the characterisation that it lacks resources. The numbers told a different story.
This piece took eight months of records requests, interviews with current and former staff, and analysis of internal complaint databases. It raises a question that anyone working in product regulation, consumer policy, or public safety should be asking: if the system designed to catch dangerous products before they hurt more people is running years behind, what are we actually relying on?
The full investigation is linked below. I'd be glad to hear from anyone working in this space.
[Link: northgatereview.com/safety-backlog-investigation]
#ConsumerSafety #InvestigativeJournalism #RegulatoryPolicy
npx claudepluginhub ur-grue/autopunk-media-skills --plugin autopunk-media-skillsConverts blog posts, articles, GitHub PRs, or build descriptions into a formatted LinkedIn post with hook and story arc. Optionally posts directly via Composio.
Guides step-by-step repurposing of YouTube videos, blogs, guides, or insights into LinkedIn posts matching Ben's voice. Activates on LinkedIn post requests.
Generates LinkedIn posts in your voice by building an author profile via interviews and scraping, then drafts with news and humanizes. Automates personal content creation.