---

name: linkedin-content-repurposer description: > Turns something made for another channel (a thread, a video or talk transcript, a blog post, a newsletter) into a post that reads as native to LinkedIn, without changing what the source says. Use when existing material should become a LinkedIn post rather than writing one from a blank page. license: MIT + Commons Clause metadata: version: 1.0.0 author: borghei category: tools domain: linkedin updated: 2026-10-07 tags: [linkedin, repurposing, content-adaptation, transcripts, fidelity-check]

LinkedIn Content Repurposer

The usual way to reuse a piece is to paste it and trim. The result carries its old channel with it: a thread arrives with numbering and a call to repost, a talk arrives with "as you can see on this slide", an article arrives as a summary of five points when a post can hold one. Readers recognise the residue at once and read it as something not written for them.

The opposite failure is quieter and worse. In rebuilding the piece, the rewrite improves on it: a rounder number, a percentage the author never calculated, a neat quotation nobody said. The post now claims something the source does not, under the name of the person who made the source.

This skill does both jobs in order. The agent first measures the source and lists what will not survive the move, then rebuilds from the idea rather than the sentences, then checks the draft against the source so that nothing was added on the way.

Offline only. The skill works from text files the user provides. It does not fetch a URL, download a video, pull a transcript, post, schedule or call any API. If the source lives online, the user pastes or saves the text first.

Scope boundary. This skill adapts material that already exists. Writing a post from a blank page or a draft seed is linkedin-post-writer. Removing machine-sounding phrasing from any draft is linkedin-humanizer; scoring or rewriting the opening line in depth is linkedin-hook-analyzer. When the source has no concrete detail and the author has to supply some, that is linkedin-story-interviewer, whose story bank file this skill can optionally read. Deciding which week the repurposed post runs in is linkedin-content-planner. Comments and replies are linkedin-comment-writer, linkedin-reply-manager and linkedin-thread-tracker; profile copy is linkedin-profile-optimizer; reuse of company material by a team is linkedin-employee-advocacy; reading results afterwards is linkedin-engagement-analytics.

When to use this skill

• "Turn this thread into a LinkedIn post"
• A talk, webinar or podcast appearance has a transcript and nothing has been done with it
• A long article or newsletter issue holds several posts and the author keeps meaning to extract them
• Something did well elsewhere and the pasted version fell flat here
• A draft has already been made from a source and needs checking for invented figures or leftover artefacts
• A team wants a repeatable way to mine one recorded talk for a month of posts

Inputs the skill expects

• The source as a local .txt or .md file: thread text, transcript, article, talk script or newsletter
• Confirmation that the user wrote it, or has the right to adapt it, and whose name the post goes under
• The one reader the post is for and the one thing it should ask of them
• Whether links in the source should appear in the post at all
• Optional: a story bank file, to widen the set of figures the author has already confirmed and to enforce never-name and no-go lists
• Optional: a different length band from the default, if the author has their own

Clarify First

Before analysing or drafting, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:

• Whose words these are — adapting your own talk is editing; adapting a colleague's, a panel's or an employer's needs permission and attribution, and changes whether the post can be first-person at all.
• One post or several — a long source usually holds more than one; deciding up front stops the draft becoming a summary of everything.
• Which single point this post carries — the analyser offers candidates, but the author knows which one they would defend in the comments.
• What happens to links and to co-speakers' remarks — both are easy to carry over by accident and awkward to remove after publishing.

Stop rule: ask only the two that most change the output. If the user says "just convert it", take the top-ranked spine candidate, produce one post, leave links out of the body, and list those assumptions above the draft.

Workflows

Quick start: save the source as a text file, run Workflow 1, draft from the top spine candidate, then run Workflow 2 before showing anyone the result.

Workflow 1 — Analyse the source before writing anything

1. Save the source text locally. Do not clean it first; the analyser needs to see the artefacts.
2. Run the analyser. Read the Move line (compress, expand, split or rebuild in place) and the number of posts the source holds.
3. Read every rework finding: each is something to remove or remake.
4. Choose one spine candidate with the author. The candidates are sentences to carry the idea from, not sentences to paste.
5. Fill assets/repurposing_brief_template.md and confirm it with the author before drafting.

python3 tools/linkedin/linkedin-content-repurposer/scripts/repurpose_analyzer.py \
  --input tools/linkedin/linkedin-content-repurposer/assets/sample_thread.txt

Workflow 2 — Check a draft against its source

1. Save the draft as a text file beside the source.
2. Run the fidelity check. A blocker means the draft states a figure or quotation the source does not contain.
3. Resolve blockers by restoring the source's wording or removing the claim. Never resolve one by editing the source to match.
4. Clear the rework items: copied sentences, leftover artefacts, an opening that talks about where the material came from. Then work through the checklist in references/native-fit-guide.md.
5. Validate again with --fail-on blocker and hand the draft to the author only when it exits 0.

python3 tools/linkedin/linkedin-content-repurposer/scripts/draft_fidelity_check.py \
  --source tools/linkedin/linkedin-content-repurposer/assets/sample_thread.txt \
  --draft tools/linkedin/linkedin-content-repurposer/assets/sample_draft.txt \
  --fail-on blocker

The sample draft fails on purpose (exit 1): it changes 12 breakdowns to 9, adds a percentage and invents a quotation. assets/sample_draft_clean.txt is the same material rebuilt properly and passes with no findings.

Workflow 3 — Mine a long source for several posts

1. Run the analyser on the article or transcript in JSON form.
2. Read posts_in_source and the units list. Treat each unit as a candidate post with its own single point.
3. For each unit worth using, write one brief. Do not write a "part 1 of 4" series; each post must stand alone for a reader who sees only that one.
4. Draft and check each post separately against the full source.
5. Hand the set to planning so the posts are spread across weeks and pillars instead of published back to back.

python3 tools/linkedin/linkedin-content-repurposer/scripts/repurpose_analyzer.py \
  --input tools/linkedin/linkedin-content-repurposer/assets/sample_article.md \
  --format json

Exit-code contract. Both tools: 0 completed; 1 a finding reached the --fail-on level; 2 a file is missing, unreadable, too short, or (for --story-bank) not a story bank.

Decision frameworks

What the Move line means

Move	When the analyser says it	What to do	Tag
Rebuild in place	Source already sits inside the length band	Keep the length, remake the opening and the joins	[PROVEN] Typical for threads
Compress	Source is above the band, one main point	Keep one point, cut the others entirely	[RECOMMENDED] Cutting beats summarising
Split	Source is well above the band with several sections	One post per point, each self-sufficient	[RECOMMENDED]
Expand	Source is below the band	Add the case, the figure and the stake from the author; do not pad	[EXPERIMENTAL] Needs new material, so the story bank or the author must supply it

What may change and what may not

Element	May change	Must not change
Opening	Entirely rewritten	The claim it leads to
Order	Freely; lead with the outcome if that is stronger	Cause and effect
Length	Compressed or expanded	Which facts are stated
Sentences	Rewritten in the author's written voice	Meaning
Figures	Rounded only if the author approves and says so	Values, units, periods, what they count
Quotations	Turned into reported speech	Wording inside quotation marks
People named	Removed or anonymised	Added

Length and opening defaults

The band of 800 to 1,600 characters and the 200-character opening window are house heuristics, set as defaults so the tools have something to measure against. They are not platform limits. Post length limits and where the feed truncates a post are current as of writing only; verify them in the product, and override with --target-min, --target-max and --opening-chars.

Source	Usual starting point
Thread	Already near the band; the work is joins and the opening
Talk transcript	Far above; pick one argument from one section
Article	Above; split by section, never summarise
Newsletter issue	One item from it, not the issue
Short note or caption	Below; expand only with the author's own detail

Anti-Patterns

Paste and trim

Mistake: The thread is pasted, the numbering deleted, and the last two segments cut to fit. Why it happens: The source already performed somewhere, so changing it feels like risk, and trimming is quick. Instead: Pick the spine, close the source, and write the post from the idea. The fidelity check reports FD-003 when more than half the draft's sentences are verbatim, which is the signature of trimming.

Summarising the whole piece

Mistake: A forty-minute talk becomes "five things I covered at the conference". Why it happens: Every section cost effort to prepare and leaving any out feels like waste. Instead: One post, one point. The other four are four more posts. The analyser's posts_in_source and RP-023 exist to make this visible before drafting.

Improving the numbers

Mistake: "12 breakdowns, down from 31" becomes "a 61% reduction", or 12 quietly becomes 9. Why it happens: Percentages sound more authoritative, and small slips enter when a rewrite works from memory of the source. Instead: Carry figures exactly, with their units and periods. A derived figure needs the author's sign-off because they will be the one asked to defend it. FD-001 blocks any number the source does not contain.

Tidying a quotation

Mistake: A remark from the transcript is shortened and sharpened, then left in quotation marks. Why it happens: Spoken sentences are messy and the cleaned version is what the speaker "meant". Instead: Either quote the words as spoken or drop the quotation marks and report it. FD-002 blocks quoted passages that do not appear in the source.

Narrating the post's history

Mistake: "I gave a talk last month and wanted to share the key takeaway here." Why it happens: It feels honest to say where the material came from, and it is an easy first line. Instead: Open on the point. Readers care what you found, not which room you found it in. RP-011 and FD-006 flag this.

Speaking for the panel

Mistake: A co-speaker's best line from a panel transcript appears in the first person in the post. Why it happens: Transcripts flatten speakers together, especially once labels are stripped. Instead: Strip nobody's label until you know whose words each passage is. Use only the author's own remarks; credit anything else by name with consent, or leave it out.

Files

Tools overview and reference documentation for this skill:

File	Purpose
scripts/repurpose_analyzer.py	Measures a source text, detects its channel, lists the artefacts that will not survive the move, recommends compress, expand, split or rebuild, ranks spine candidates and estimates how many posts the source holds
scripts/draft_fidelity_check.py	Gate that compares a draft with its source: blocks on new figures and altered quotations, flags copied sentences, leftover artefacts, stale openings and length; optionally reads a story bank
scripts/repurpose_rules.py	Rule data and text primitives shared by both tools: the rule catalogue, artefact patterns, sentence splitting, figure extraction; --list-rules prints the catalogue
references/source-format-playbooks.md	Per-channel playbooks: thread, talk and video transcript, article, newsletter, short note; what to keep, cut and rebuild in each
references/native-fit-guide.md	What makes a post read as written for LinkedIn: opening, shape, rhythm, ask, links, with platform mechanics marked as verify-in-product
references/fidelity-rules.md	The contract between source and draft: figures, quotations, attribution, permission, other people's words, and how the gate enforces each
assets/sample_thread.txt	Nine-part fictional thread with numbering, a handle, a link, a repost ask and a hashtag cluster
assets/sample_talk_transcript.txt	Fictional talk transcript with timestamps, speaker labels, filler and slide references
assets/sample_article.md	Fictional four-section article with headings, a table, a footnote and an image, long enough to split
assets/sample_draft.txt	Draft made from the thread by paste and trim, with a changed figure and an invented quotation; fails the gate
assets/sample_draft_clean.txt	The same thread rebuilt properly; passes the gate
assets/repurposing_brief_template.md	Fill-in brief agreed with the author before drafting: source, rights, point, reader, ask, carry-over list, cut list