Grade the first two lines of your LinkedIn post
Most people decide whether to keep reading in the first two lines. Get a transparent score out of 100 and three rewritten hooks you can paste and edit.
Your Hook Is Doing Most Of The Work
Most readers never tap "see more"
If the first two lines don't earn the click, the rest of a well-written post goes unread.
Openers that talk about you, not them
"Excited to share..." tells the reader nothing about what they get. Hooks that speak to the reader's problem win.
Rewriting by feel, with no way to compare
Three versions of a hook and no way to tell which is stronger is guesswork dressed up as editing.
A Score You Can Argue With, And Rewrites To Pick From
Paste your hook. Six rules check the length, curiosity, specificity, authority, action and clickbait, and add up to a score out of 100. Then three AI rewrites arrive, each from a different angle and graded by the same rules.
What A Better Hook Looks Like
An example hook, graded by the same rules the tool uses. It is an illustration, not a client result.
Excited to share some thoughts on cold email today!
I sent 1,200 cold emails in 30 days and booked 14 meetings. Here's the follow-up sequence that did it, and why most people stop too early.
How It Works
Paste your hook
Just the first two lines of your post. No profile link, no scraping.
Get a rule-based score
Six checks, scored in code, so the same wording always gets the same number.
Compare three rewrites
Each takes a different angle and is graded by the same rules. Copy the one that sounds like you.
The Six Checks
Each check is a plain rule you can read and disagree with. The AI writes the rewrites, but it never sets your score.
- Length
- Does it fit above the "see more" cut on a phone, and still say something?
- Curiosity
- Does it open a loop, a contrast or a question the reader wants answered?
- Specificity
- Are there numbers, time frames and named details, or only vague claims?
- Authority
- Does it sound like someone who did the thing, with a result attached?
- Action
- Does it speak to the reader and promise something they can use?
- No clickbait
- Is it free of hype phrases, shouting and exclamation marks?
Why This Works
A score you can read
Six plain rules, not a black box
Every point is explained, so you know exactly what to change instead of guessing.
Rewrites with a different angle each
Result, contrarian and curiosity, side by side
Not three versions of the same line. Pick the angle that fits what the post is really about.
Rewrites graded too
See whether a rewrite beats your original
The alternatives get the same score as your hook, so the comparison is fair.
Common questions
The first two lines of a LinkedIn post, the part shown before the "see more" cut. On a phone that is roughly the first 210 characters. Most readers decide whether to keep reading from those two lines alone.
Six rules are checked in code: length, curiosity, specificity, authority, action and a clickbait penalty. They add up to 100. The same wording always gets the same score, and the AI never sets it.
Google's Gemini writes three alternative hooks, each from a different angle: a specific result, a contrarian take and a curiosity gap. Each alternative is then scored with the same six rules, so you can compare them with your original.
No. The rewrites keep your meaning and facts. Where a number would help and you gave none, the tool uses a placeholder such as [X%] for you to fill in with something true.
No. The score tells you how well the opening follows common hook principles. Reach also depends on your audience, topic, timing and the rest of the post. Use the score to compare versions, not to predict results.