plan-content — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited plan-content (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
A LinkedIn presence with no plan tends to drift. The user posts whatever they thought of that day, the topics vary widely, the audience does not learn what to expect from them, and the algorithm does not learn what to surface them for. A content plan is not about scheduling tweets; it is about deciding what the user wants to be known for and then producing content that reinforces that consistently.
LinkedIn's 2026 algorithm and audience both reward consistency in topic and angle. The algorithm builds an interest-graph profile of what the user posts about and surfaces it to people interested in those topics; the audience builds an expectation of what to come to the user for. Random posting forfeits both.
But "consistency" is also where most content strategy advice goes off the rails into rigid editorial calendars that the user abandons in two weeks. This skill is meant to produce something light enough to actually use: a few content pillars, a clear audience, and a sustainable cadence.
Trigger when:
Do NOT trigger when:
A short conversation, not a survey. Aim for 4-6 questions, batched at most two at a time.
If voice-profile.md and rewrite-profile output exist, read them. Both inform the plan.
A pillar is a recurring topic-and-angle pair. Not just a topic.
Bad pillar: "Engineering management" Good pillar: "What I am changing about how I run engineering at this company size"
Bad pillar: "Product strategy" Good pillar: "The decisions I am making this quarter that I am unsure about"
The structure of a strong pillar:
[topic the user knows about] + [angle the user can own]The angle is what differentiates the user from every other person posting about the topic. It should:
3-5 pillars is the sweet spot. Fewer than 3, and the audience gets bored. More than 5, and the user is not focused enough for the algorithm or the audience.
Cadence depends on the user's actual capacity, not on aspirational numbers. The right cadence is the one the user will sustain.
Rough framework:
The mix matters too. Within a week:
But none of this is prescriptive. The plan should match what the user will actually do.
Save to content-plan.md in the workspace.
# Content plan for [user's name or role]
Generated [date]. Revisit every 3 months.
## Audience
[2-3 sentences on the specific audience]
## What I want to be known for
[one sentence]
## Content pillars
### Pillar 1: [name]
Topic: [what the topic is]
Angle: [the unique angle the user owns]
Why this works for me: [the user's specific access to material here]
Example post ideas: [3 concrete ideas, not topics]
### Pillar 2: [name]
[same structure]
### Pillar 3: [name]
[same structure]
[3-5 pillars total]
## Cadence
- [N] posts per week, in this mix: [breakdown by format]
- Commenting: [N] comments per day/week on others' posts
- Long-form: [cadence for articles or newsletter]
## What I will NOT post about
[the no-go zones]
## Review checkpoints
- After 4 weeks: review which pillars are getting traction
- After 12 weeks: re-run plan-content if neededThe plan is a guide, not a contract. If the user writes a post that does not fit a pillar, that is fine; the question is whether it is the start of a new pillar or a one-off. After 4-8 weeks of posting, the actual pattern of what the user produces should inform whether to revise the pillars.
Some users want a more rigid calendar (Monday: pillar 1, Wednesday: pillar 2, Friday: carousel). Others want only the pillars and resist the calendar. Match the user.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.