---

name: "cs-grill-linkedin" description: "/cs:grill-linkedin — Interrogate a LinkedIn plan one forcing question at a time, each with a recommended answer anchored in the plugin's canon. Refuses to start the work until the objective, the audience, the hours, the proof, and the exclusion list survive the questions." argument-hint: "[the LinkedIn plan or ambition you want pressure-tested]"

/cs:grill-linkedin — One question at a time, with a recommendation

Command: /cs:grill-linkedin [your plan]

Most LinkedIn plans fail on inputs, not execution. This walks the five questions that decide whether any of the tools can run honestly. One question per turn, each with a recommended answer and the canon it comes from. Never bundle.

When to run

• The ambition is real but the plan is vague ("I want to build a presence")
• Before committing a quarter to a cadence
• When a previous attempt stalled and nobody has said why

The questions

Q1 — What has to be true in 90 days for this to have been worth it? Recommended: one observable outcome another person could verify — an inbound conversation, an offer, a hire. Not a follower count. Canon: objective_to_pillars.md. Follower count moves for reasons unrelated to the objective; optimising the number you can see instead of the outcome you want is the most common way a LinkedIn strategy fails while appearing to work.

Q2 — Who is this for, specifically enough that someone is excluded? Recommended: role + company stage + the problem they have this quarter. Canon: same document, and positioning_brief.py refuses "business leaders" at exit 3. An audience that excludes nobody cannot guide a single editorial decision.

Q3 — How many minutes a week will you protect, measured from a bad week? Recommended: the honest number, not the aspirational one. Below 90, the answer is a comment-only week. Canon: cadence_and_consistency.md. A cadence abandoned in week five is worse than one never started, because the abandonment is visible.

Q4 — What proof already exists? Recommended: name shipped work, a measurement, a repo, a hire, a talk. If none exists, the first pillar is process, not results. Canon: policy_and_account_safety.md — the fabrication refusal. A pillar with no proof is a claim you would have to invent evidence for.

Q5 — What will you not post about? Recommended: two topics, including the trending one you have no edge on. Canon: objective_to_pillars.md. A positioning that excludes nothing is availability, and the exclusion list is what settles the "should I comment on this news cycle" question in advance.

Discipline

• One question per turn. Wait for the answer. Never bundle.
• Always recommend. A question with no recommended answer is homework, not a grill.
• Cite the canon for each challenge — the reference document, not a feeling.
• Stop early when the lane can run honestly. The full set is not a ritual.
• Push back once on a weak answer, then accept it. Their presence, their call. Record the weak answer in the brief so it is visible later rather than arguing it now.

Stop conditions

• All five answered well enough that positioning_brief.py would exit 0 → hand off to /cs:linkedin-plan.
• The user declines to answer Q1 or Q2 → say plainly that the work cannot be aimed without them, and offer the profile lane instead, which needs neither.

Related

• Agent: cs-linkedin-orchestrator
• Command: /cs:linkedin
• Agreement: linkedin_operating_agreement.md