| name | consulting-linkedin-hooks |
| description | Write or critique the first line of a LinkedIn post (the hook) using patterns reverse-engineered from real top-performing posts. Use on "write hooks for this", "give me 10 hooks", "fix this hook", "why won't this hook land", "what's a scroll-stopping opener", or whenever drafting/critiquing a post's line 1. This is the dedicated hook engine; consulting-linkedin-post-architect handles whole-post structure and defers here for the hook; consulting-copy-writer governs voice/anti-slop. |
Consulting LinkedIn Hooks
Line 1 is ~80% of a LinkedIn post's performance — it decides whether anyone reads line 2. This skill
generates and critiques hooks from patterns measured against real engagement, not generic advice.
Patterns + cited examples + the empirical rules live in references/hook-patterns.md — read it before writing or grading a hook.
The one rule
Steal structure, not persona or slop. The patterns come from creators (Justin Welsh, Jasmin Alić,
Ruben Hassid, …) whose voice Sid doesn't share. Map the shape onto Sid's substance (AI/agents for
music & media; B2B AI adoption) and run the result through consulting-copy-writer (no banned words,
no em-dash). Ruben Hassid's AI hooks are the closest direct transfer — start there for AI content.
To WRITE hooks
- Name the post's job and the engagement goal. Comments, or saves/shares? That picks the pattern
family: belief/identity → comments; utility/interrupt → saves/shares (see the engagement-signature
note per pattern in the reference).
- Generate 8–12 options across at least 4 different patterns (don't give 10 variants of one). Pull
from the 8 patterns in
references/hook-patterns.md. Keep each ≤60 characters, one idea, no
question, no listicle count (a vivid specific number is fine; a count is not).
- Write the one-two punch: for the top 3, draft line 2 as well (a ≤8-word amplifier/twist) — the
hook is really the first two lines before the fold.
- Run voice + anti-slop: pass the finalists through
consulting-copy-writer. Cut any banned word,
em-dash, or borrowed-persona edge.
- Hand off: for a full post around the hook, continue in
consulting-linkedin-post-architect.
To CRITIQUE a hook
Grade it against the reference's cross-cutting rules and name the failing one specifically:
- Over 60 chars / two ideas / buried lede → too long; cut to the claim.
- A question, or a listicle count ("5 ways…") → swap for a declarative pattern.
- Vague/clever instead of concrete → rewrite with a specific.
- Doesn't match the engagement goal → switch pattern family.
Then rewrite it 2–3 ways across different patterns and say which you'd ship and why.
Keep it current
Hooks decay; "best practice" is just "what got engagement last month." Re-run the scrape +
swipe/_work/analyze_hooks.py monthly (or via consulting-integrations-sync) and refresh
references/hook-patterns.md from the new top set. Origin evidence + method:
swipe/2026-06-25-hook-analysis.md.
