Write Draft / Post Writer (LinkedIn Writer — Phase 4b, reworked Phase 17)

Converts either a status: selected Idea Note (default, primary path) or a Content-Learnings/story-bank.md Post Spine (--spine <id>, new path) into an actual LinkedIn post draft, written to Drafts/ using _Templates/Draft-Note.md. Also selects a hook formula from Content-Learnings/hook-formulas.md by engagement goal, and — for Career / Interview Prep categories, or whenever asked — an optional founders angle from Content-Learnings/founders-angle-library.md, grounded in real Story Bank material. Assumes /plan-week has already assigned a day to the idea (idea path only — a spine has no day assignment to assume).

Arguments

• idea-id (optional, default path) — draft one specific idea. If omitted, and no --spine is given, draft every idea currently status: selected that doesn't already have a draft linked to it.
• --spine <spine_id> (optional, new path) — draft from a Post Spine row in Content-Learnings/story-bank.md's ## Post Spines table instead of an Idea Note. Mutually exclusive with idea-id.
• --goal <goal> (optional, either path) — explicit engagement goal override. Closed list: likes, comments, shares, saves, profile-visits.
• --founders (optional, either path) — force-consider a founders angle even outside Career / Interview Prep categories. Still subject to the same real-Story-Bank-match-or-skip rule below — this flag only widens when the attempt happens, never lowers the bar for using one.

Process

1. Determine the entry path

• idea-id given, or no --spine (default): the existing idea-based flow below, unchanged in spirit — this stays the primary path.
• --spine <spine_id> given: load that row from Content-Learnings/story-bank.md's ## Post Spines table by id. Its receipt_id / position_id cross-references, if set, are the grounding for this draft — treat them with the exact same never-fabricate discipline as an idea's linked research notes: every factual claim in the draft must trace back to the spine's own fields (hook_angle, story_beat, position, suggested close) or the Story Bank row(s) it cross-references. If the spine sets no receipt_id / position_id, the draft must not invent one — work only from what the spine itself states. There is no idea for this path, so there's no idea status to flip at the end; instead the Draft Note records spine_id (see step 7) so its provenance is traceable.

2. Load context (idea path) / load the spine (spine path)

• Idea path: read the Idea Note and every research note in its sources[]. All factual claims in the draft must trace back to something in those research notes' Summary/Key Findings — never introduce a new statistic, quote, or claim that isn't already there.
• Spine path: read the spine row plus every Story Bank row it cross-references (by receipt_id/position_id). Those rows are this draft's entire factual grounding — there is no research note to fall back on.

3. Determine the engagement goal (both paths)

Precedence: explicit --goal <goal> argument > the idea's own goal field if it has one and is set (idea path only) > a Content-Learnings/ playbook.md-evidenced pattern for this category (real post ids attached as evidence), if one exists > default comments. Closed list, exactly these five values: likes, comments, shares, saves, profile-visits. Never invent a sixth value.

4. Read the voice guide and playbook

Read Content-Learnings/voice-guide.md in full before drafting. This is the current source of truth for hook style, structure, length, tone, and things to avoid — it starts as a documented default and will be updated by later phases as real approval/edit data accumulates. Always re-read it fresh each run; don't rely on a cached memory of it, since it can change.

Also check Content-Learnings/playbook.md for any evidenced rule about length, hook style, or hashtags for this category/content_type. If one exists (with real post ids attached as evidence), prefer it over the voice guide's generic defaults for that specific dimension.

5. Select a hook formula

Read Content-Learnings/hook-formulas.md fresh each run — never rely on a cached memory of it, since /extract-hook and human promotions grow it over time. Filter to status: canonical rows only (never select a proposed row — those aren't trusted for drafting yet) tagged for the chosen engagement goal; a formula with no engagement_goals value is general-purpose and eligible for any goal. Among the eligible set, prefer a formula not used in the last ~5 drafts — check recent Drafts/ notes' hook_formula field (new frontmatter field, see step 7) to avoid repetition. If every eligible formula was used recently, repetition is acceptable rather than forcing a worse goal-fit; goal match beats novelty.

6. Optional founders angle

Triggered automatically if the idea's (or spine's) category is Career or Interview Prep, or if the user passed --founders. Otherwise skipped without comment (it's simply not applicable this run).

If triggered:

1. Read Content-Learnings/founders-angle-library.md fresh each run.
2. Look for a canonical angle (never proposed) whose bracketed template slots can genuinely be filled from an actual Content-Learnings/story-bank.md entry (a Receipt, Turning Point, Scar, or Defensible Position) matching the topic.
3. Real fit found → use it. Fill every bracket with the real Story Bank value, nothing invented or rounded, and cite that Story Bank row's id in the Draft Note's sources/founders_angle note.
4. No real fit → drop the founders angle entirely for this draft, silently in the draft text (don't leave a half-filled template) but not silently in the report — call this out explicitly in "Report back" below. Never invent a plausible-sounding number or anecdote just to complete a bracket.

7. Draft the post

• Hook: idea path uses the idea's hook field, refined if needed and shaped by the selected hook formula's opening mechanic; spine path uses the spine's hook_angle, similarly shaped. The hook formula shapes the opening line only — it never overrides step 9's opinion/fact separation, and it must never misrepresent certainty (e.g. don't let a "contrarian claim" formula state a personal opinion with the same declarative confidence as a sourced fact).
• If a founders angle was used (step 6), it shapes the whole structure of the post per its template — the angle's bracketed narrative arc becomes the post's body, still filled only with real Story Bank specifics and still following the same fact-discipline as everything else here.
• If no founders angle is in play: hook → the substantive content → an optional closing discussion question, only if the voice guide's CTA guidance supports one here.
• If the idea's format is opinion (or the content otherwise includes a subjective take, not just what the research/Story Bank supports), frame it explicitly as a view — "I think," "the mistake I keep seeing," "my take" — rather than stating it with the same declarative confidence as a sourced fact (REQUIREMENTS.md §21: clearly distinguish opinions from facts). Sourced claims and personal opinions should read differently to the reader, not blend together.
• Length: per the voice guide's default (~1,200–1,500 characters, comfortably under LinkedIn's ~3,000 limit) unless the material genuinely needs more room.
• Follow the voice guide's "avoid" list explicitly — check the draft against it before finalizing, don't just aim for the tone and hope.

8. Hashtags

3–5, directly tied to topic/category, no stuffing. Unchanged from before.

9. Write the Draft Note

Copy _Templates/Draft-Note.md into Drafts/ as YYYY-MM-DD--kebab-slug.md (idea path: use the idea's target_date, not today, if the two differ; spine path: use today's date, since a spine has no target_date — the filename should reflect when it's meant to post).

Fill in: category, format, hook_style, hashtags, status: draft, history: [{action: created, date: today, note: ...}], plus the new frontmatter fields:

• hook_formula: the matched formula_id from step 5 (e.g. F10).
• engagement_goal: the goal determined in step 3.
• founders_angle: the matched angle_id from step 6 if one was used (e.g. A5), else left empty.
• Idea path: idea_id set to the idea's id, spine_id left empty. sources inherited from the idea (research note ids), plus the Story Bank row id if a founders angle was used.
• Spine path: spine_id set to the spine's id, idea_id left empty. sources populated from whatever Story Bank row ids actually grounded the draft (the spine's own cross-references, and/or a founders-angle Story Bank row) — never a research note, since none exists for this path.

Leave viral_score at 0 and visual_ids empty — scoring the draft and generating visuals are later phases (Quality/Critic Agent, Visual Agent), not this skill's job.

10. Update the idea (idea path only)

Flip the Idea Note's status: selected → drafted. Spine path: no status flip — Story Bank rows aren't a status-driven lifecycle, so the spine stays as-is and can be reused or referenced again later.

Report back

Show the full draft text, hashtags, character count, and:

• Which research sources (idea path) or Story Bank row(s) (spine path) backed it.
• Which hook formula was used, and why — the engagement-goal match and the anti-repetition check against recent drafts.
• Whether a founders angle was attempted, and its outcome: used, with the Story Bank row it cited — or explicitly skipped because no real fit existed (never omit this without saying so).

This is pre-approval content, not ready to schedule. Remind the user that approval/edit/regenerate workflow (Phase 7) doesn't exist yet, so right now this just produces a file for manual review.

Hard rules

• Never invent a fact, statistic, or quote not present in the linked research notes (idea path) or the cited Story Bank rows (spine path). If the grounding doesn't support a specific claim the hook implies, soften the claim rather than fabricate support.
• Never draft an idea that isn't status: selected (run /plan-week first).
• Never invent a founder anecdote or number that isn't present in Content-Learnings/story-bank.md — no genuine match means no founders angle for this draft, not a fabricated one.
• Never select a proposed-status hook formula or founders angle for drafting — both must be canonical.
• A hook formula shapes phrasing only; it must never misrepresent certainty or blend a personal opinion into the same declarative register as a sourced fact (REQUIREMENTS.md §21).
• The --spine path is grounded in Story Bank citations with the same rigor the idea path applies to research citations — never looser, never treated as "softer" evidence just because it's personal material.
• Never mark anything as approved, scheduled, or published — this skill only produces a draft file.