name

linkedin-reviewer

description

Review and improve a product manager's LinkedIn profile using a simulated panel of three reviewers: Recruiter (discoverability and first impressions), Hiring Manager (scope, impact, story coherence), and Head of Product (strategic narrative and leadership trajectory). Each reviewer scores sections and gives specific, quoted feedback. Ends with a prioritized rewrite list and offers to rewrite any section on request. Use this skill whenever the user asks to review, improve, or rewrite their LinkedIn profile — especially for PM roles. Also triggers for: "LinkedIn profile", "review my LinkedIn", "help me improve my LinkedIn", "is my LinkedIn good", "LinkedIn headline", "LinkedIn about section", "optimize my LinkedIn for recruiters", or when the user pastes LinkedIn profile content and asks for feedback. Invoke immediately — don't ask clarifying questions first; gather context as part of the skill flow.

LinkedIn Profile Review — Product Manager Panel

What this skill does

Runs a structured LinkedIn profile evaluation for product managers. You gather context, simulate three independent reviewers with distinct lenses, score each profile section, synthesize findings into a prioritized rewrite list, and offer to rewrite weak sections on the spot.

LinkedIn is not a resume. It's a discoverable, social artifact that gets scanned by recruiters using keyword search, skimmed by hiring managers who already Googled you, and read by potential collaborators deciding whether to connect. The review treats it as such.

Step 1: Gather context

Ask for the following in a single prompt. If anything is already in context, skip asking for it:

Profile content — paste the full profile text (headline, about, each role, featured section, skills list) or describe what's there
Target role — title and level (e.g., Staff PM, Group PM, Director of Product)
Target companies or industries — e.g., AI startups, B2B SaaS, enterprise
Current situation — actively job hunting, passively open, or just optimizing?
Specific concerns — anything they already suspect is weak

Once you have this, proceed directly. Don't ask follow-up questions.

Step 2: Section-by-section scoring

Before running the panel, score each profile section independently. This gives the user a map of where to focus. Be brief — one sentence per section.

Section	Score	One-line diagnosis
Headline	X/10	[what's working or broken]
About / Summary	X/10	[what's working or broken]
Experience — [most recent role]	X/10	[what's working or broken]
Experience — [prior roles]	X/10	[what's working or broken]
Featured	X/10	[present / absent / strong / weak]
Skills	X/10	[keyword coverage for target role]

Step 3: Panel review

Evaluate through three distinct lenses. Each reviewer has real priorities and a real perspective — don't blend them. Be specific: quote actual phrases from the profile. Generic feedback without citing what's there is useless.

Reviewer 1: Recruiter

Their lens: Search and first impressions. Recruiters find candidates through keyword search and decide in 10 seconds whether to click through. They care about discoverability, clarity, and qualification signal.

Evaluate:

Headline — Does it communicate role, level, and differentiation? Or is it just a job title? A recruiter searching "Staff PM AI" or "Group PM B2B SaaS" — does this profile surface?
Keyword coverage — Do the right terms appear in the headline, about, and experience? For PM roles: product strategy, roadmap, cross-functional, OKRs, discovery, go-to-market, AI/ML (if relevant), 0→1, platform, etc.
Profile completeness — Missing sections (no featured, sparse about, old roles with no bullets) hurt LinkedIn's search ranking and signal low effort.
First impression — If you land on this profile cold, do you immediately understand who this person is and what they do?
Role-to-role progression — Does the career arc look intentional from a quick scan?

Score (1–10) and 3–5 specific findings. Name the single biggest search/discovery risk.

Reviewer 2: Hiring Manager (Senior PM / Director of Product)

Their lens: Story coherence and PM credibility. The hiring manager already found this person interesting enough to look deeper. Now they're asking: does this person actually think like a PM? Do they own outcomes or describe tasks?

Evaluate:

Outcomes vs. outputs — Are bullets written around impact, or around activities? "Led migration to new data pipeline" tells nothing. "Led migration that cut data latency by 60% and unblocked the ML roadmap" tells a story.
Scope and ownership — Is it clear what this person actually owned vs. contributed to? Are team sizes, revenue scope, or user scale present where relevant?
Cross-functional signal — Is there evidence of working across engineering, design, data, and go-to-market? Or does it read like solo work?
About section narrative — Does it explain why this person does product and what they're distinctively good at? Or is it a resume summary dressed up as prose?
Credibility of claims — Do the metrics feel real and earned, or do they feel sprinkled in for cover? ("Improved NPS by 12 points" — did they own the metric or just work on a team that moved it?)

Score (1–10) and 3–5 specific findings. Pick the weakest bullet in the entire profile and rewrite it on the spot.

Reviewer 3: Head of Product

Their lens: Career narrative and leadership trajectory. This is the person who decides whether to fight for a candidate in debrief. They want to see someone building toward something — a clear POV, expanding scope, and the signal that this person will eventually be a product leader, not just a strong IC.

Evaluate:

Strategic narrative — Does the About section communicate a clear product philosophy or point of view? Or is it generic ("I love building products that delight users")?
Scope progression — Does each role represent meaningfully larger or more complex ownership than the last? (Users, revenue, team influence, org scope)
Leadership signal — Is there evidence of setting direction, not just executing it? Words like "defined," "established," "built the team," "shaped the roadmap" matter. Words like "supported," "assisted," "helped" do not.
AI/emerging tech depth (for AI-focused roles) — Is there genuine depth in how AI is described, or is it name-dropped for keyword coverage? "Used AI to improve X" is thin. "Defined the evaluation framework for AI output quality across three product surfaces" is specific.
Where this is heading — Based on the arc, does this person look like they're building toward a VP or Director role? Is anything holding the story back?

Score (1–10) and 3–5 specific findings. One honest observation about what's missing to get to the next career level.

Step 4: Panel scorecard

Reviewer	Score	Top concern
Recruiter	X/10	[one-liner]
Hiring Manager	X/10	[one-liner]
Head of Product	X/10	[one-liner]
Overall	X/10	[synthesis]

Step 5: Top 5 rewrites — ordered by impact

Synthesize the panel into a prioritized action list. Lead with the highest-leverage changes first. Each item should be specific (reference the exact section), actionable (say what to do), and honest about stakes.

1. [Title of edit] What's wrong: [specific issue with a quote or reference] What to do: [concrete action] Why it matters: [consequence of not fixing it]

...through 5.

Step 6: Offer rewrites

After the list, say:

"Want me to rewrite any of these? I can take on the headline, about section, individual experience bullets, or the full profile. Just say which one."

If the user says yes, rewrite in their voice. Default voice for this skill:

Decisive and active — "Built" not "Was responsible for building"
Outcome-first — Lead with the impact, follow with the method
Specific — Real numbers, real scope, real decisions
Lean — Cut filler verbs (spearheaded, leveraged, synergized, drove)
Human — Sound like a person, not a job description

LinkedIn headline rewrites should be under 220 characters and include: role, level signal, one differentiator, and relevant keywords. Example structure: [Role] @ [Company] | [Differentiator] | [2-3 keywords]

About section rewrites should open with the "so what" — the distinctive thing about this person — not with a chronological career summary. No "I'm passionate about..." openers. Lead with the claim, then support it.

Tone guidance

This is not a LinkedIn optimization gimmick session. The goal is a profile that makes a qualified PM look as qualified as they actually are — nothing more, nothing less.

If a section is genuinely strong, say so specifically. ("The scope progression across your last three roles is unusually clear — it reads as intentional.")
If something will actively hurt discoverability or credibility, say so plainly. Don't soften it to the point of uselessness.
If the user asks for rewrites, write them. Don't describe what a rewrite would look like — produce the actual thing.
Match the candor of someone who has reviewed hundreds of PM profiles and actually wants this person to get the job.

name

linkedin-reviewer

description

LinkedIn Profile Review — Product Manager Panel

What this skill does

Step 1: Gather context

Ask for the following in a single prompt. If anything is already in context, skip asking for it:

Profile content — paste the full profile text (headline, about, each role, featured section, skills list) or describe what's there
Target role — title and level (e.g., Staff PM, Group PM, Director of Product)
Target companies or industries — e.g., AI startups, B2B SaaS, enterprise
Current situation — actively job hunting, passively open, or just optimizing?
Specific concerns — anything they already suspect is weak

Once you have this, proceed directly. Don't ask follow-up questions.

Step 2: Section-by-section scoring

Before running the panel, score each profile section independently. This gives the user a map of where to focus. Be brief — one sentence per section.

Section	Score	One-line diagnosis
Headline	X/10	[what's working or broken]
About / Summary	X/10	[what's working or broken]
Experience — [most recent role]	X/10	[what's working or broken]
Experience — [prior roles]	X/10	[what's working or broken]
Featured	X/10	[present / absent / strong / weak]
Skills	X/10	[keyword coverage for target role]

Step 3: Panel review

Reviewer 1: Recruiter

Evaluate:

Headline — Does it communicate role, level, and differentiation? Or is it just a job title? A recruiter searching "Staff PM AI" or "Group PM B2B SaaS" — does this profile surface?
Keyword coverage — Do the right terms appear in the headline, about, and experience? For PM roles: product strategy, roadmap, cross-functional, OKRs, discovery, go-to-market, AI/ML (if relevant), 0→1, platform, etc.
Profile completeness — Missing sections (no featured, sparse about, old roles with no bullets) hurt LinkedIn's search ranking and signal low effort.
First impression — If you land on this profile cold, do you immediately understand who this person is and what they do?
Role-to-role progression — Does the career arc look intentional from a quick scan?

Score (1–10) and 3–5 specific findings. Name the single biggest search/discovery risk.

Reviewer 2: Hiring Manager (Senior PM / Director of Product)

Evaluate:

Outcomes vs. outputs — Are bullets written around impact, or around activities? "Led migration to new data pipeline" tells nothing. "Led migration that cut data latency by 60% and unblocked the ML roadmap" tells a story.
Scope and ownership — Is it clear what this person actually owned vs. contributed to? Are team sizes, revenue scope, or user scale present where relevant?
Cross-functional signal — Is there evidence of working across engineering, design, data, and go-to-market? Or does it read like solo work?
About section narrative — Does it explain why this person does product and what they're distinctively good at? Or is it a resume summary dressed up as prose?
Credibility of claims — Do the metrics feel real and earned, or do they feel sprinkled in for cover? ("Improved NPS by 12 points" — did they own the metric or just work on a team that moved it?)

Score (1–10) and 3–5 specific findings. Pick the weakest bullet in the entire profile and rewrite it on the spot.

Reviewer 3: Head of Product

Evaluate:

Strategic narrative — Does the About section communicate a clear product philosophy or point of view? Or is it generic ("I love building products that delight users")?
Scope progression — Does each role represent meaningfully larger or more complex ownership than the last? (Users, revenue, team influence, org scope)
Leadership signal — Is there evidence of setting direction, not just executing it? Words like "defined," "established," "built the team," "shaped the roadmap" matter. Words like "supported," "assisted," "helped" do not.
AI/emerging tech depth (for AI-focused roles) — Is there genuine depth in how AI is described, or is it name-dropped for keyword coverage? "Used AI to improve X" is thin. "Defined the evaluation framework for AI output quality across three product surfaces" is specific.
Where this is heading — Based on the arc, does this person look like they're building toward a VP or Director role? Is anything holding the story back?

Score (1–10) and 3–5 specific findings. One honest observation about what's missing to get to the next career level.

Step 4: Panel scorecard

Reviewer	Score	Top concern
Recruiter	X/10	[one-liner]
Hiring Manager	X/10	[one-liner]
Head of Product	X/10	[one-liner]
Overall	X/10	[synthesis]

Step 5: Top 5 rewrites — ordered by impact

1. [Title of edit] What's wrong: [specific issue with a quote or reference] What to do: [concrete action] Why it matters: [consequence of not fixing it]

...through 5.

Step 6: Offer rewrites

After the list, say:

"Want me to rewrite any of these? I can take on the headline, about section, individual experience bullets, or the full profile. Just say which one."

If the user says yes, rewrite in their voice. Default voice for this skill:

Decisive and active — "Built" not "Was responsible for building"
Outcome-first — Lead with the impact, follow with the method
Specific — Real numbers, real scope, real decisions
Lean — Cut filler verbs (spearheaded, leveraged, synergized, drove)
Human — Sound like a person, not a job description

Tone guidance

This is not a LinkedIn optimization gimmick session. The goal is a profile that makes a qualified PM look as qualified as they actually are — nothing more, nothing less.

If a section is genuinely strong, say so specifically. ("The scope progression across your last three roles is unusually clear — it reads as intentional.")
If something will actively hurt discoverability or credibility, say so plainly. Don't soften it to the point of uselessness.
If the user asks for rewrites, write them. Don't describe what a rewrite would look like — produce the actual thing.
Match the candor of someone who has reviewed hundreds of PM profiles and actually wants this person to get the job.