# Repurposing Chain

A set of independent posts extracted from one source, each standing on its own claim, with an honest count rather than a forced ten.

- Version 1.0, updated 18 September 2026
- Works with: Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini or any capable assistant
- Source: https://www.linkediz.com/prompts/content-repurposing

## Use when

- You have a webinar, a long call, a report or an article and nothing on the calendar.
- You want a month of posts from work you already did.
- You are running content for a client and the source material is what they gave you.

## Variables to replace

- `{{SOURCE_MATERIAL}}` — Source material. Paste the raw input — the transcript, the post, the notes, the article.
  Example: Transcript of a 40-minute customer interview with a controller at a 700-person retailer.
- `{{AUDIENCE}}` — Audience. Who should stop scrolling. Everyone else is noise in the metrics.
  Example: Finance directors at multi-entity companies, plus the controllers who report to them
- `{{TOPIC}}` — Topic. What the post is about. A claim you are prepared to defend, not a theme.
  Example: Why a nine-day close is usually an entity problem, not an effort problem

## How to use

1. Run the steps in order in the same conversation. Each one reads the previous output.
2. Stop at step 1 if the count is low. A source that supports two posts supports two posts.
3. Do step 4 even when you are in a hurry. "Which one should not be published" is the highest-value line in the chain.

## Context files this expects

- `BRAND-VOICE.md` — https://www.linkediz.com/ai/files/voice
- `CONTENT-ENGINE.md` — https://www.linkediz.com/ai/files/content-engine

---

## The prompt

Step 1 of 4 — Extraction.

You are an editor reading source material for claims that could each carry a post on their own.

## Source
{{SOURCE_MATERIAL}}

## Context
Audience: {{AUDIENCE}}
The position this should ladder into: {{TOPIC}}

## Task
List every claim the source genuinely supports. For each: the claim in one sentence, the evidence inside the source that supports it, and a strength rating (strong / adequate / thin).

Then state how many posts this source can honestly carry. If the answer is two, say two. Do not stretch it.

## Output
| # | Claim | Evidence from the source | Strength | Stands alone? |
|---|---|---|---|---|

Then: "This source supports N posts" plus one line on what was too thin and why.

---

## Step 2 — Angles

_Decide what each surviving claim is actually arguing, and to whom._

Step 2 of 4 — Angles.

Take the claims rated strong or adequate from step 1.

For each one:
- The angle: what this post argues, in one sentence, phrased so a reader could disagree.
- Who it is for: the specific reader, not "B2B marketers".
- Why now: what makes it worth saying this month rather than any month. If nothing does, mark it evergreen and say so honestly.
- What it must not claim: the overreach the evidence does not support.

## Output
| # | Angle | Reader | Why now | Must not claim |
|---|---|---|---|---|

Then order them for publishing, and say why that order. Usually: strongest first, because the first post decides who sees the rest.

---

## Step 3 — Drafts

_Write each post to the house rules._

Step 3 of 4 — Drafts.

Write each post from step 2.

Rules:
- 120–220 words.
- Opening line states the claim or the surprise. No teasing, no formula openings.
- One concrete detail from the source, with its real numbers.
- State the limitation of the claim in one line.
- End with something answerable.
- Never add a fact that is not in the source material from step 1.
- No hashtags beyond two, no emoji bullets, no engagement bait.

## Output
For each post: the full text, the word count, and the one line from the source it rests on.

---

## Step 4 — Schedule and critique

_Sequence the posts and find the weak one before it publishes._

Step 4 of 4 — Schedule and critique.

Take the drafts from step 3.

1. Order them across the next N weeks at my stated cadence, with at least four days between posts that make related claims — two posts arguing the same thing in one week reads as a campaign, not a point of view.
2. For each post, name its single weakest sentence and say what is wrong with it.
3. Identify the one post that should not be published and say why.
4. Name what is missing: the post this set should contain but the source could not support, and what material would create it.

## Output
### Schedule
| Date | Post | Claim | Weakest sentence |
|---|---|---|---|

### Do not publish
Which one and why.

### The missing post
What it would argue, and the material needed.

---

## Notes

Written to a fixed structure and run through Claude and ChatGPT to confirm each one returns the output format it declares. That is not the same as a measured reply-rate benchmark, and nothing here claims one — if you run these at volume and have numbers, we want them.

---

Linkediz LinkedIn AI Toolkit — v1.0, 18 September 2026
Source and updates: https://www.linkediz.com/prompts/content-repurposing
LinkedIn plan limits and prices in this file: https://www.linkediz.com/linkedin-limits