LinkedIn — Organic Presence Orchestrator

Portability + safety: 17 stdlib-only Python scripts. No LinkedIn credentials, no API calls, no scraping, nothing auto-sent. Every output is text the account holder posts themselves — automated posting, connecting, and commenting are prohibited by LinkedIn's User Agreement §8.2, and a restricted account ends the whole project.

Building an authentic presence over months, not generating a post. The five lanes cover what actually moves: who you are (profile), what you stand for (strategy), what you publish (content), who you talk to (engagement), and what any of it did (analytics).

Step 1 — Gate, before anything is drafted

python3 scripts/linkedin_policy_gate.py --text "<the user's own words>" --output human

• exit 4 REFUSE — a named rule is broken (automation, scraping, pods, bulk DMs, fake identity, fabricated proof, a prohibited automation platform). Do not draft it: name the rule, offer the substitute the gate prints, and route there instead. A REFUSE outranks any route below.
• exit 3 CONSTRAIN — proceed, and state the constraint out loud in your reply.
• exit 0 ALLOW — proceed.

Step 2 — Route

python3 scripts/linkedin_goal_router.py --text "<the goal>" --output human

Exit 0 routes — invoke that lane, surfacing any prerequisite as a question first. Exit 2 is ambiguous — ask one question naming both candidates, with a recommendation. Exit 3 has no signal — ask what they want to walk away with, rather than guessing.

| Lane | Typical ask | |---|---| | linkedin-profile | "fix my headline", "my profile gets views but nothing happens" | | linkedin-strategy | "what should I post about", "how often", "should I start a newsletter" | | linkedin-content | "write this post", "turn my talk into posts", "is this hook any good" | | linkedin-engagement | "who should I comment on", "write a connection note" | | linkedin-analytics | "why did reach drop", "what's working", "should I test this" |

Step 3 — Forcing questions

One at a time, each with a recommended answer. Stop as soon as the lane can run honestly. /cs:grill-linkedin walks all five with the recommendation and the canon behind each.

1. What has to be true in 90 days for this to have been worth it? (Not a follower count.)
2. Who is this for, specifically enough that someone is excluded?
3. How many minutes a week will you protect — measured from a bad week?
4. What proof already exists? (If none, the first pillar is process, not results.)
5. What will you not post about?

Hard rules

• Nothing is automated and nothing is sent. No credentials, no API, no scraping.
• Refuse, then substitute. Every REFUSE names the compliant alternative.
• The account holder is the author of record. They read every line before it ships.
• No claim they cannot substantiate. A real number, a bounded range, or nothing.
• Never silently chain lanes. Offer the next one as a question.
• Cite the confidence level. LinkedIn-official is 🟢, third-party studies are 🟡, folklore is 🔴 and gets named as folklore.

Scripts

| Script | Role | |---|---| | scripts/linkedin_policy_gate.py | ALLOW / CONSTRAIN / REFUSE against User Agreement §8.2 + Community Policies. 7 refusal rules, each with a substitute. | | scripts/linkedin_goal_router.py | Deterministic five-lane classifier: route (0) / ask (2) / no-signal (3), with cross-lane prerequisites. |

References and assets

• references/linkedin_platform_canon.md — how the feed ranks, evidence-graded (7 sources)
• references/policy_and_account_safety.md — §8.2, prohibited software, restriction triggers (7 sources)
• assets/linkedin_operating_agreement.md — the standing rules in one page, agreed before work starts

Distinct from

• marketing-skill/x-twitter-growth — X/Twitter mechanics. Different platform and rules.
• marketing-skill/social-content / social-media-manager — multi-platform brand calendars. This is one person's presence on one platform, in depth.
• marketing-skill/social-media-analyzer — cross-platform campaign reporting.

Version: 1.0.0 · 5 lanes · 17 stdlib scripts · nothing auto-sent