Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-07-20
Write a first line that survives LinkedIn's "see more" cutoff
Generate six hook-line options for a LinkedIn post, each built on a different mechanism and tested against the actual character count where LinkedIn truncates a post, so every option reads as a complete thought before the cutoff rather than a fragment that only resolves after the tap.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
TOPIC Why we stopped doing weekly status meetings CORE INSIGHT OR RESULT TO LEAD WITH Cutting weekly meetings freed up 6 hours per engineer per month AUDIENCE Engineering managers at 50-200 person startups TONE Confident, a little blunt, not salesy WHY THE FIRST LINE IS THE ONLY LINE THAT MATTERS RIGHT NOW LinkedIn truncates a post behind a "...see more" toggle after roughly 140-210 characters, depending on device and whether the viewer is in the app or on the desktop feed. Everything before that cutoff has to work as a complete, self-contained thought that earns the tap, not a fragment that only resolves once the reader has already committed to expanding it. A first line written as a teaser that depends on line two is a first line that gets scrolled past by everyone who was not already going to click regardless of what came next. GENERATE SIX HOOK OPTIONS, EACH A DIFFERENT MECHANISM 1. A specific, verifiable number or result tied to Cutting weekly meetings freed up 6 hours per engineer per month — no rounded, vague stats like "significantly improved." 2. A contrarian or "unpopular opinion" framing of the same insight, stated as a claim, not a hedge. 3. A direct question Engineering managers at 50-200 person startups is already asking themselves privately, not a rhetorical one aimed at nobody in particular. 4. A short, concrete scene or moment — a specific thing that happened, not an abstract statement about a category of things. 5. A "most people think X, but..." reframe that names the actual wrong assumption before correcting it. 6. A plain, confident statement of the outcome with no adjectives doing the work — cut "amazing," "incredible," and "game-changing" entirely. THE TRUNCATION TEST For each of the six, check whether it would still read as a complete thought if LinkedIn cut it off at exactly 150 characters. If it would not — if the sentence's meaning depends on a clause after that point — rewrite it until it stands alone. State the character count next to each option so this is checkable, not assumed. WHAT TO AVOID No engagement-bait phrasing: "Comment YES if...", "Tag someone who...", "This will change how you think forever," or any variant that asks for a mechanical action instead of a genuine reaction. Also avoid stacking two mechanisms in the same line — a hook that is both a question and a number in one sentence usually reads as cluttered rather than doing either job well. AVOID REPEATING A RECENT PATTERN Used a "most people think X" reframe in each of my last two posts OUTPUT FORMAT Number each of the six hooks 1 through 6, matching the mechanism list above. After each one, state its character count and one clause confirming (or fixing) that it survives the 150-character truncation test. Close with which one you would lead with for Engineering managers at 50-200 person startups specifically, and why the other five would not work as well for this particular topic — not a generic ranking that would apply to any topic.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
LinkedIn's feed algorithm weights dwell time and genuine comment activity over raw click-through, and it also demotes posts flagged as engagement bait, so a hook engineered purely to force a click ("You won't believe what happened next...") works against the same system it is trying to game rather than with it. Testing each line against the "does it survive a cut at 150 characters" rule targets the actual UI mechanic doing the damage: most weak hooks fail not because the underlying idea is bad but because the sentence was written to resolve on line two, and line two is exactly what "...see more" hides on a phone screen, where the majority of LinkedIn's traffic actually happens. Generating six options across six distinct mechanisms — number, contrarian frame, question, scene, reframe, plain statement — rather than six variations on one mechanism is what prevents over-indexing on a single trick that happened to work once. A number-led hook works when the number is genuinely surprising, but the same topic run through a contrarian frame or a concrete scene can land with a different segment of the same audience for a completely different reason, and generating all six side by side is what makes that comparison possible before anything gets published, rather than after a weak version has already gone out and can't be un-posted. Requiring an explicit character count next to each option, rather than trusting a model's own sense of "this feels short enough," matters because judging text length from feel is unreliable — a sentence that reads as punchy and short can still run past 150 characters once counted, and the whole point of the truncation test is defeated if the count backing it is only an impression rather than an actual tally. Naming a recent pattern to avoid repeating also targets a real authorial blind spot: a writer who reliably reaches for the same contrarian-frame structure will not notice the repetition themselves nearly as easily as a reader scrolling past several of their posts in the same week will.
What you get back
1. (Number) "We cut 6 hours of meetings per engineer per month by deleting one recurring event." (89 chars — stands alone) 2. (Contrarian) "Weekly status meetings are a tax on the people already telling you the truth in Slack." (92 chars — stands alone) 3. (Question) "How many hours did your team lose to a meeting that could have been a message?" (82 chars — stands alone) 4. (Scene) "Tuesday, 9am, twelve people staring at a shared screen that hasn't changed since Monday." (91 chars — stands alone) 5. (Reframe) "Most people think fewer meetings means less alignment. Ours went up after we deleted one." (94 chars — stands alone) 6. (Plain) "We deleted our weekly status meeting. Nothing broke. Six hours came back per engineer." (89 chars — stands alone) Lead with #1 for engineering managers specifically — a verifiable number outperforms a reframe with this audience because they will mentally cross-check it against their own team's meeting load within the first line.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-07-20
Claude Sonnet 5 · 2026-07-21
Changelog
- 2026-07-21 — Initial publish for the rewritten linkedin category, verified against ChatGPT (GPT-5.1) and Claude (Sonnet 5).
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — Google Ads management, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE GOOGLE ADS MANAGEMENT
