playbook-linkedin-engagement
Skill1 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the list should be people who liked or commented on a competitor's or customer's LinkedIn posts, with source-company exclusions and a DNC list. Also use when raw engager exports need filtering down to the roughly 1-in-10 that fit the ICP.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 59
If the client's ICP is unknown, ask: Never infer a headcount band, a country list, or a title set.
- Distinctive: line 77
Rows are the deliverable; lines are opt-in: Never run a line writer unless the brief asks.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Playbook: LinkedIn Engagement
All rules here are best practice, not law. Override any of them when the campaign calls for it; note the best practice once and move on.
Use when an account's audience is the client's audience — a competitor or the client's own customer.
Do not use for more companies in a market, similar companies (playbook-lookalikes), or job
changers (playbook-new-in-role). The chain is the same for both lanes; only the target URL changes.
Output: one row per engager — who, employer, post, evidence URL. engagement_line is opt-in.
The number that governs planning
⚠️ Roughly 1 in 10 raw engagers survives. Harvest 10 to 15x what you need.
Cost follows from that: about $4.45 per 1,000 raw engagers, which is about $45 per 1,000 usable prospects at the measured survival rate. That is squarely in expensive territory, so shortlist posts by engagement count before you scrape.
The source-company rule (both halves, always automatic)
This is the rule that separates a usable engagement list from an embarrassing one, and it has two halves that people implement only one of.
(a) Drop every engager employed by ANY source company — not just the author of the post they engaged with. Match each current employer on resolved domain first, then profile URL, then squashed name, and also on resolved email domain.
(b) Push every source company onto that client's do-not-contact list. Row drops fix only this run; the block list runs at send time, which is what stops the same people arriving through a different lane next month.
It bites hardest on the customer lane, where the source companies are people the client already works with.
⛔ Never block the client's own domain. If it appears in the source set, the list is wrong — stop.
Before any paid call
- The operator confirms the source list. Say it out loud: "these companies and everyone who works at them go on this client's DNC list."
- Resolve every source account to a bare domain first. An unresolved source silently disables
both halves of the rule above. Unresolved means stop, not continue.
(
playbook-social-link-findingdoes this conversion in both directions.) - If the client's ICP is unknown, ask. Never infer a headcount band, a country list, or a title set.
Run it
0 Confirm source URLs, client ICP, and whether the brief wants a line (default: no).
0b Resolve every source account to a bare domain -> source-companies.json (EXACT match only).
Unresolved => STOP.
1 Company posts, windowed to the last month, shortlisted by engagement count.
2 Post reactions + post comments for the shortlisted posts.
3 ICP enrichment (headcount, company) on the engagers.
4 Deterministic pre-gate: source-company drop, ICP filter, dedupe.
5 Suppression pass: client DNC, existing TAM, live campaigns.
6 DNC push (once per harvest).
7 Email finding, valid only.Rows are the deliverable; lines are opt-in. Never run a line writer unless the brief asks. When it does, an empty-line row leaves that campaign for the normal one rather than shipping a gap.
Verification
PASS 17/18 correct outcomes on the source-and-gate test — and note what that counts: a correct exclusion is scored as a usable outcome. Raw signal yield was 1 usable prospect in 17 unique people.
Both numbers are true and they measure different things. The gate works; the yield is thin. Plan from the yield.
⚠️ The end-to-end harvest has never been run in one pass. Do a one-post run and read the output before scaling.
Clay implementation
clay-table.md— where the gate lives in a table.clay-workflow.md— the CLI-buildable version.
Edge cases and failure modes
| Symptom | Cause | Fix |
| The list contains the client's own employees | The client's domain got into the source set | Stop. The list is wrong |
| The list contains the competitor's own staff | Only half (a) was implemented, matched on name alone | Match on resolved domain first, then profile URL, then squashed name, then email domain |
| The same people reappear next month through another lane | Half (b) was skipped | The DNC push is what persists. Row drops do not |
| The source-company rule appears to do nothing | An unresolved source URL produced an empty source set | An empty set silently disables both halves. Unresolved means stop |
| Cost per usable prospect is 10x the estimate | You costed raw engagers, not survivors | ~1 in 10 survives. Harvest 10-15x |
| A person's employer is wrong | Taking the first entry of an experience array rather than the current one | Read the current experience explicitly |
| Rows silently vanish on a join | Post and engager records key differently | Confirm the join key on one post before scaling |
| The run stalls waiting on a scraper | There is no fallback source by design | The run waits. A different scraper is not a drop-in substitute here |
Hard rules
- Both halves of the source-company rule, every run, automatically.
- The operator confirms the source list before any paid call.
- Rows are the deliverable. Lines are opt-in.
- If the ICP is unknown, ask.
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- growthenginenowoslawski/coldoutboundskills★ 75991% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository58 other files it gives its agents.
- abm-measurementSkill
- abm-retargetingSkill
- abm-target-accountsSkill
- auto-research-publicSkill
- b2b-cold-email-copywritingSkill
- blitz-list-builderSkill
- buying-committee-mapperSkill
- campaign-copywritingSkill
- campaign-strategySkill
- champion-move-detectionSkill
- clay-playbooksSkill
- closed-won-replication-playSkill
- cold-email-kickoffSkill
- cold-email-starter-kitSkill
- cold-email-weekly-rhythmSkill
- competitor-engagersSkill
- deliverability-incident-responseSkill
- deliverability-test-publicSkill
- disco-likeSkill
- email-deliverability-auditSkill
- email-gateway-detectionSkill
- email-waterfallSkill
- experiment-designSkill
- google-maps-list-builderSkill
- icp-onboardingSkill
- icp-prompt-builderSkill
- lead-magnet-brainstormSkill
- list-builderSkill
- list-expanderSkill
- list-quality-scorecardSkill
- personalization-subagent-patternSkill
- playbook-ad-librarySkill
- playbook-ai-specificitySkill
- playbook-case-study-pageSkill
- playbook-company-name-cleaningSkill
- playbook-creative-ideasSkill
- playbook-first-name-cleaningSkill
- playbook-fundraisingSkill
- playbook-google-site-searchSkill
- playbook-hiring-surgeSkill
- playbook-job-posting-languageSkill
- playbook-lookalikesSkill
- playbook-name-to-other-prospectsSkill
- playbook-new-in-roleSkill
- playbook-pricing-pageSkill
- playbook-social-link-findingSkill
- playbook-social-postsSkill
- playbook-tech-on-websiteSkill
- playbook-warm-introsSkill
- positive-reply-scoringSkill
- prospeo-full-exportSkill
- prospeo-search-apiSkill
- smartlead-apiSkill
- smartlead-campaign-upload-publicSkill
- smartlead-inbox-managerSkill
- smartlead-spintaxSkill
- spam-word-checkerSkill
- zapmail-domain-setup-publicSkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

