LinkedIn post analyzer

Paste your draft and get a 0-100 score across 10 editorial checks — hook above the fold, sentence length, wall-of-text paragraphs, hashtags, buzzwords, bare links. These are craft checks, not algorithm claims: they catch the self-inflicted problems before you hit post.

● free · no login · runs in your browser

Your post

How to use it

Paste the post you're about to publish. Nothing you paste leaves your browser.
Hit Analyze. You get a 0-100 score plus a pass/warn/fail line for each check, with a one-line explanation of what to fix.
Work through the fails — usually the hook and paragraph density first — then re-analyze until the mechanical problems are gone.

What pre-publish checks actually catch

Most posts that die in the feed don't die because the idea was bad. They die from self-inflicted, mechanical problems: a hook that gets amputated mid-sentence by the …see more fold, a first paragraph that runs six sentences deep, a closing that trails off instead of landing. These are exactly the problems a checklist can catch, because they're structural — you can count them.

The 10 checks here encode that: the hook must survive the ~210-character fold as its own complete line (check it visually in the post preview); it should carry a number, a question, or tension, because those are the reliable click-earners; sentences should average under ~20 words and no paragraph should run past 3 sentences, because the feed is a skimming medium; and the post should end on a question or a short takeaway, because the last line is what people respond to.

Best practices, not algorithm claims

To be explicit: none of these checks are claims about how LinkedIn ranks posts. LinkedIn doesn't publish its ranking system, and any tool that promises "algorithm-optimized" scores is selling confidence it can't have. What these checks measure is editorial craft — the things that make a post easier to read, and a hook more likely to earn the click. The two places the tool touches unofficial territory, it hedges: the fold position (~210 desktop / ~140 mobile) is undocumented and shifts with UI changes, and the bare-link check reflects a widely reported practice (link in the first comment, not the body) that LinkedIn has never confirmed as a penalty.

The honest limits of a heuristic

A heuristic can count sentences, spot "synergy", and measure your hook against the fold. It cannot tell you whether your claim is interesting, whether your story lands, or whether the post says anything your audience hasn't heard fifty times. A mechanically perfect post about nothing scores 100 and still flops.

So treat the score as a floor, not a verdict: clear the mechanical bar, so that if the post fails, it fails on the merits of the idea. For the judgment part — is this take strong enough, does the draft sound like you, what's the counterargument — Liftli runs a real plan → draft → critique → revise loop on every post inside the AI you already use, instead of a checklist. If your draft passes here but reads generic, run it through the AI-sounding post checker next.

For AI agents

Drafting posts with Claude Code or another agent? Install the skill version — it runs the same 10 editorial checks on any draft in your terminal, so your agent scores its own output before showing it to you:

npx skills add liftli-ai/skills --skill linkedin-post-analyzer

Part of the liftli-ai/skills collection — browse all 28 skills, one per tool on this site. For the full pipeline (voice extraction, strategy memory, publishing), connect the Liftli MCP.

Frequently asked questions

What does this LinkedIn post analyzer check?

Ten editorial checks: whether your hook fits above the ~210-character fold as its own line, whether it carries a number, question or tension; average sentence length; wall-of-text paragraphs; total length (400–2,600 characters is the healthy zone); hashtag count (0–3); emoji count; buzzwords; whether the post ends with a question or a clear takeaway; and bare links in the body.

Does a high score mean my post will perform well?

No. The score measures editorial craft — formatting, hook mechanics, density — not whether the idea deserves attention. A mechanically perfect post about nothing will score 100 and still flop. Treat the score as a floor: it catches the self-inflicted problems, so that if the post fails, it fails on the merits of the idea.

Are these checks based on the LinkedIn algorithm?

No, and be suspicious of any tool that claims otherwise — LinkedIn doesn't publish its ranking system. These are editorial best practices: things that make posts easier to read and more likely to earn the see-more click. Where a check touches something unofficial, like the fold position or link behavior, the tool says so and hedges.

Why does the analyzer flag links in my post?

Bare URLs in the post body are commonly reported to reduce reach — LinkedIn has never confirmed a penalty, so treat it as folk wisdom with a lot of anecdotal support rather than fact. The low-risk pattern most practitioners use: keep the body link-free and put the URL in the first comment, mentioning it in the post.

Is my post uploaded anywhere when I analyze it?

No. Every check runs in your browser with plain JavaScript — nothing you paste leaves your machine.

What can't a heuristic score tell me?

Whether the idea is good. Heuristics can count sentences and spot buzzwords, but they can't judge if your claim is interesting, your story is true-feeling, or your take adds anything. That judgment needs an actual critique — which is why Liftli runs a real plan-draft-critique-revise loop on every post instead of a checklist.