A week of LinkedIn posts that sound like you, not like AI.
Two agents. One decides what is worth saying and to whom. The other writes it, and a separate pass reviews it cold before it reaches you. Every post below came out of the real engine.
Ideation is one call. Writing and reviewing then run in parallel, so a batch of six takes about as long as a batch of one. Press run to watch the pipeline the engine actually executes.
1 Load brand context2 Marketing agent ideates3 Content agent writes4 Cold editorial review5 Route to your board
Replays a real run against the posts below.
02 · The board
Everything waits for you
The reviewer can approve, send back or kill, but nothing reaches LinkedIn without you. Filter, read, approve. These are real posts, not placeholders.
03 · Why it does not read like AI
Three things doing the work
The brand file, not the prompt. Your positioning, five buyer types and what each is afraid of, the proof territory, and the voice rules all live in one file the agents read every time. Change the file, everything downstream changes. That is where the quality actually sits.
The reviewer never saw the draft being written. It is a separate call with no drafting context, scoring specificity from one to ten: could a competitor have posted this? A model grading its own fresh work is generous. One that only sees the finished post is not.
It cannot invent. No client, project, figure, date or outcome that is not in the brand file. No implied guarantee of a planning outcome. The reviewer flags anything regulatory before you see it, which is the flag on the change-of-use post above.
Every post shown here came out of the engine and is on the live board. Nothing on this page is a mock-up.
Planning specifics should be checked against current policy before publishing: the posts describe what a question turns on rather than asserting an outcome, which is the right posture, but it is your name on them.