Makes: a LinkedIn post, or a short or long-form article, in her voice. Marked used as Published.
Status: draft. From the Sprint 4 Experience Brief and the Functional Scope (3.4 Thought Leadership Builder), and what the prototype does today. Lines marked Proposed are Claude's, for Kate to confirm. Rules every builder shares are in builders/shared.md; this brief has the same seven sections as the other three.
1. Builder card
| What it makes | A post draft with other openings (hooks); or, when she chooses an article, headline options and a sectioned article draft; questions for the evidence it won't invent; a recommended next use and follow-up. |
| What it is for | Turning her own idea, a plan step or a Briefing read into something public under her name. |
| When to use it | When she has a view worth putting her name to. |
| Use case screen | "A LinkedIn post or an article in your voice, from your own idea, a step on your plan or something you read." / "Use it when you have a view worth putting your name to." |
It never publishes. She copies it and posts it herself. Nothing in it says or implies ExecHQ posts.
1.1 How people arrive here
- From a Briefing read. The one connection between the Briefing and the Toolbox. The read arrives as the source, labelled "Started from today's Briefing", with its title, publisher and reason line, and stays on the artifact for its life. From an annotated passage, the passage comes too.
- From an action step whose tool is Thought Leadership Builder:
| Plan | Action step |
|---|---|
| Step Up | 2.1 Choose one relevant visibility channel and create a credible proof-of-value artifact or activity (when the channel is published content) |
| Make Your Mark | 2.1 Write and publish a first piece under her own name on one of her topics; 2.3 Respond to a Briefing read with a short post; 4.3 Turn what she has published into a body of work |
| Lead Where You Are | 3.3 Share a point of view on her area where people inside will see it |
| Chart a New Course | 3.1 Try one small, new thing in a direction she is drawn to; 3.2 Respond to a Briefing read in a direction she is curious about |
- In the prototype's mock plan: "Post what you lead on LinkedIn" (
linkedin-post), which arrives with the topic "What I lead, and where it is going". - From "What's on your mind?" when what she says names a post, LinkedIn, an article, a blog, a newsletter, an essay, an op-ed, writing or reading.
- From the Toolbox or the library, and from one of her posts ("Use as a start").
1.2 When another builder fits better
Proposed.
- She wants to be invited to say it on a stage or a show → Pitch Builder.
- It is really about her, not about an idea → Positioning Builder.
- She needs to say it to one room, not in public → Situation Brief.
2. What it knows and what it asks
2.1 What it already has
| Fact | Where it comes from |
|---|---|
| Who it is for ("Marketing and commercial leaders, and the people who decide on scope") | Her direction |
| One example from her own work ("I'm leading our planning workstream this year…") | Her plan |
| The read, and the passage | The Briefing, when she started from it |
| Her positioning statement | Onboarding. The use case screen says "Your post draws on it for what you lead." (open question 6) |
2.2 What it asks
| Question | Short name | Kind | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| What are you writing? | Format | One choice: LinkedIn post, Short article, Long-form article | Yes | The first question, on the use case screen. Starts on LinkedIn post. |
| What is it about? | Topic | Her words | Yes, unless she started from a read | "A few words. ExecHQ shapes the rest with you." Arrives filled from an action step. |
| What is your point of view? | Point of view | Her words, long | Yes | "One line is enough. Agree with the article, push back, or add what it leaves out." |
| What should a reader do at the end? | Ending | Her words | No | "Ask a question, invite a reply, or nothing." |
| Any result or evidence to point to? | Evidence | Her words, long | No | "What changed because of it. Leave out numbers you can't share." Fills "What I have seen so far". |
| How should it sound? | Voice | One choice: Plainer, Warmer, More direct | No | Sets ExecHQ's opening and closing lines. |
| How long? | Length | One choice: Short, Standard, Long | No | Where in the format's range the first draft sits (section 3.1): Short near the bottom, Long near the top. |
2.3 Enrichers
None in the prototype for a post. Proposed: "Add three recent accomplishments", the same enricher as Positioning Builder, when her example is the only proof in the draft.
3. The draft
"Here is a first draft of your post. Change anything; it is yours."
| Section | What it is for | Her words | ExecHQ's wording | Left as a question when missing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Post | The post itself | Her point of view, her example, her evidence, her ending | An opening by voice (her topic as a sentence; "Something I've been thinking about: …"; "Here is what I think about …"), or "I read something this week that stayed with me: [the read]"; "One line stayed with me: '[the passage]'"; "What I have seen so far: …"; a closing line by voice when she gave no ending | What is your point of view? What changed because of it? (until she gives evidence) |
| Other openings | Three hooks to swap in (a post) | None | "Something I have changed my mind about this year."; "I used to see this differently."; "A question I keep asking the people I work with." (or a line from the read) | None |
| Headline options | Three to choose from (an article) | Her topic | "[topic]: what I would do again"; "[topic], in three lessons" | What is the article about, in a line? |
| Introduction | The article's opening | Her point of view | The opening, and the passage when there is one | What is your point of view? |
| The idea | Why she holds the view | None | "Here is why I hold this view." | Why do you hold this view? |
| What I have seen | Her experience and evidence | Her example, her evidence | None | What is one example from your own work? What changed because of it? |
| Where it gets hard (long-form only) | The best argument against her | None | "The strongest argument against this: …" | What is the strongest argument against your view? How do you answer it? |
| What to do about it | What a reader should do | Her call to action | None | What should a reader do differently? |
| Closing (long-form only) | The last line | None | A closing line by voice | None |
| Recommended next use | When and how to publish, and what to do after | None | "Post it on a weekday morning, and reply to comments the same day." (or, for an article, "Publish it as a LinkedIn article, with a short post that links to it."); the plan step it came from, if any; "When someone responds, answer in your own words. ExecHQ will ask how it landed in a week." | None |
Rules for this builder:
- The source shows for the life of the artifact, on the draft and in the library.
- Evidence gaps are questions, never invented numbers, names or results ("What changed because of it?").
- Her point of view is never softened into a both-sides line.
3.1 Format rules
Kate, 14 Oct; she confirmed the word ranges. Each format has its own rules, and every draft keeps them. In V1 they are fixed: she can't change them. Letting her set her own (a post of at least 300 words, one cited source) is for a later version; see below.
| Rule | LinkedIn post | Short article | Long-form article |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | 150 to 300 words | 600 to 900 words | 1,200 to 2,000 words |
| Sources cited | None needed; the read, when she started from one | At least one | At least two |
| Sections | One piece, with three other openings | Five (section 3) | Seven, adding Where it gets hard and Closing (Shorter can drop Where it gets hard, section 4) |
| Ending | Her ending, or a closing line by voice | Her call to action | Her call to action, then a closing line |
| Hashtags and emoji | None | None | None |
How the draft keeps them:
- Length is a range, not a target. Her Length answer picks where in the range the first draft sits: Short near the bottom, Standard in the middle, Long near the top. Shorter and Longer move within it, never out of it.
- Checked behind the scenes (Kate, 14 Oct). The range is a guardrail the draft is held to, not something shown on it: no word count on the draft. What she sees are the questions below, when a draft falls outside it.
- Short of the range, it asks; it never pads. "This is 110 words. What else would a reader need?" Over the range, it asks what can go: "This is 340 words. A post runs to 300. What can go?"
- A missing source is a question. An article short of its sources leaves "What source backs this up?" in place. ExecHQ never finds, suggests or invents a citation to fill it.
Guardrails no format, and no later setting, can change:
- Never invent a fact, number, name, result or quote.
- Credit the source by publication, and never quote more than a line.
- Keep her words apart from ExecHQ's wording.
- Never post or publish for her.
Later version: her own format rules. Not in V1 (Kate, 14 Oct). When it comes, she could change a format's length, sources, sections and ending, never the guardrails above. The proposal so far: learn from what she does (picking Longer twice on posts offers "Make 300+ words your default for posts?"), keep them in one place (a "Your writing defaults" row in Profile, a line per format), and show them on the draft ("Post · 150 to 300 words · Edit").
4. Changing it
As the PRD names them, voice, specificity, length and audience, plus emphasis and the conversational follow-up. Every sentence stays whole:
- Shorter: a post loses the quoted passage and an unanswered "What I have seen so far"; an article loses "The idea" and "Where it gets hard".
- Longer: asks "Why does this matter to you now?", in the post or as its own article section, never adds a fact.
- Voice and audience re-say ExecHQ's closing line, never hers (Senior leaders: "If you lead a function, what would you want your teams to know?"; My team: "What would you add?").
- Emphasis: My example or The article's point comes straight after the opening; The question at the end opens the post as well as closing it. Proposed: "The article's point" shows only when she started from a read.
- Specificity is recorded with the version; the prototype does not rewrite for it (no model).
- Shorter and Longer stay inside the format's range (section 3.1). At the edge of it, the option says so rather than going past: "A post runs to 300 words. This is as long as it goes."
5. Using it
| Copy | "Copy to post on LinkedIn" |
| Export | A post: copy only. An article: Download as PDF and Word too (Sprint 4's answer for long-form articles). |
| Mark ready, then published | "Mark ready", then "Mark published". Publishing is always hers. |
| Check back | 7 days after she marks it published (Proposed) |
| The question | "You published your post on planning on Monday. How did it land?" (the PRD's self-reported engagement). Answers: It landed well · It was mixed · Not much response · Nothing yet · It's no longer relevant. Her tap is all the feedback: ExecHQ asks nothing more. The same wording wherever a post is checked in on. She can answer in the builder as soon as it is published. |
| Signal Picture | Once published, the post and what came of it, under the plan area it serves; it counts toward her published-content signal |
| Reuse | "Use as a start" makes a new post from this one, linked back |
After she answers
Her tap is all the feedback: ExecHQ asks nothing more, says her answer back, and always gives the next step (Kate, 13 Oct). One leads, with at most one more. A Plan step goes on her Plan only when she taps Add it to your plan; where a step is already done or passed on, the next step on her Plan takes its place. "Not now" folds it to one line. Built by rules (AFTER_ANSWER in mock/toolbox.ts); no model in the pilot.
| Answer | Next step | Then |
|---|---|---|
| It landed well | Add to plan: Pitch yourself to a podcast the people above you follow ("Your post is the proof.") | Add to plan: Share one result with someone two levels up |
| It was mixed | Write from today's Briefing | Next on your plan |
| Not much response | Try a different opening: a new post starting from this one | Write from today's Briefing |
| Nothing yet | Next on your plan | "ExecHQ will ask how it landed on …" |
| It's no longer relevant | Closed. Next on your plan |
6. How the agent behaves here
Proposed, all of this section. It adds to the rules every builder shares (builders/shared.md, section 8) and keeps the four guardrails (section 9).
- Her voice. First person, plain words, her sentences kept whole. No hashtags, emoji or engagement bait.
- A view, not a summary. A post that only restates the article is not done; it asks for her point of view first.
- Credit the source. A post from a read names the publication and never quotes more than a line.
- Private stays private. Nothing from her Signal Picture or what she said about her company goes into a post unless she writes it in.
- No promise of reach. It never predicts likes, followers or who will see it.
7. Open questions
- Cadence. The Functional Scope lists "post cadence recommendations". Is that this builder's job, or the plan's?
- Suggested citations. The Functional Scope offers "an optional list of missing evidence or suggested citations". The prototype leaves questions in place. Is a separate list needed?
- Her positioning statement in the post. "Goes with this" says the post draws on it for what she leads, but the draft doesn't use it yet. Use it, or take the promise off?
- Article length. Section 3.1 now gives each format a word range (600 to 900, and 1,200 to 2,000). Are those right, and are five and seven sections the right difference between them?
- Next use for a read. A post started from a Briefing read names no plan step. Should it say it answers the read, and when to post while the read is still current?
- Format rules elsewhere. If she can set her own format rules in a later version, do the other builders get the same (a pitch's length, the bios' three lengths), or is it Thought Leadership only? Kate, 14 Oct: probably all of them; settle it when that version is planned.