Basado en el framework de Paolo Trivellato (@paolo_scales)
LinkedIn trunca cada post después de ~280 caracteres con un botón "see more". El algoritmo lee el click-through rate de ese botón como señal primaria de calidad. Si el hook no genera suficiente tensión para que el lector haga clic, el post muere.
Este SOP documenta el sistema de 5 pasos que Paolo Trivellato usa para ingenierizar hooks de LinkedIn con Claude Sonnet 5. Según datos de clientes, el sistema mejora el CTR de "see more" entre 40% y 60%.
Tiempo estimado por iteración: 45-60 minutos Herramientas necesarias: Claude Sonnet 5 (o equivalente), acceso a LinkedIn Nivel: Intermedio
Objetivo: Construir un pattern library específico de tu nicho con las estructuras de hook que realmente están funcionando.
Recolectar 50 hooks: Scrolleá tu nicho en LinkedIn y copiá los primeros ~280 caracteres de cada post que tenga 100+ comentarios o 50,000+ impresiones. Tomá 30-40 minutos. Solo los hooks, no los posts completos.
Ejecutar el prompt de análisis en Sonnet 5:
You are a LinkedIn hook analyst. You have deep expertise in what makes the first
280 characters of a LinkedIn post generate the highest "see more" click-through rate.
Here are 50 high-performing LinkedIn posts from B2B founders in the [your niche] space.
Each post generated significant engagement (100+ comments or 50,000+ impressions).
[paste the first 280 characters of 50 high-performing posts, just the hooks]
Analyze every hook and identify:
1. The hook structure used (hard result, contradiction, specific number, identity challenge,
story opening, or hybrid)
2. The specific word or phrase that creates the curiosity gap
3. Where the gap opens and why it works
4. The emotional trigger (fear, curiosity, status threat, FOMO, recognition)
5. The strength rating (1-10) based on: novelty, specificity, tension, and implied value
After analyzing all 50, produce:
- The top 10 hooks ranked by strength with explanation of why each works
- The 3 hook structures that appear most frequently in the top performers
- The 5 specific words or phrases that appear across multiple top hooks
- The patterns that distinguish the top 10 from the bottom 10
Format as a structured brief I can reference every time I write a new hook.
Un pattern library de ~500 palabras con: - Las 3 estructuras de hook más frecuentes en tu nicho - Los hooks top 10 rankeados por fortaleza - Palabras gatillo específicas que aparecen en los mejores hooks - Patrones que distinguen hooks exitosos de fallidos
Objetivo: No usar la misma estructura de hook en todos los posts. El algoritmo penaliza patrones repetitivos.
| Estructura | Cuándo usarla | Ejemplo |
|---|---|---|
| Hard result + "how" | Case studies, resultados concretos | "870,000 LinkedIn impressions converted into $150,000+ in contracted value for a B2B SEO agency." |
| Contradicción | Belief-shift posts | "The founders scaling fastest on LinkedIn right now aren't writing better content." |
| Número específico | Lead magnets, data posts | "One lead magnet post. 4,000 comments. $89,000 in revenue by month six." |
| Identity challenge | Desafiar creencias del ICP | "If your LinkedIn content strategy is focused on thought leadership, you've already lost the leads." |
| Story opening | Personal stories, case studies | "A founder who hadn't eaten dinner with his family in three months asked us to fix his LinkedIn." |
You are a LinkedIn hook strategist. You understand the relationship between
hook structures and post types.
Here is the post I'm about to write:
- Title: [title]
- Funnel stage: [TOF / MOF / BOF]
- Post type: [belief-shift / methodology breakdown / case study / lead magnet / personal story]
- The core claim or insight: [one sentence summary]
- The strongest proof point available: [specific number, case study, or example]
Based on the hook pattern library:
[paste the analysis output from step 1]
Recommend the 3 best hook structures for this specific post, ranked by predicted
"see more" click-through rate.
For each recommendation:
- Name the structure
- Explain why it fits this specific post better than the alternatives
- Provide a rough example of what the hook would look like
Also recommend the re-hook line that should appear immediately after "see more"
for each hook structure.
Objetivo: Producir 20 hooks variados de los cuales seleccionar los mejores.
You are writing LinkedIn hooks for [client name], a [description].
Voice rules:
- All lowercase unless proper nouns
- Direct, conversational, not corporate
- Specific numbers over vague claims
- No hedging, conviction backed by proof
- Short sentences mixed with longer contextual ones
- Never start with "most people don't know" or "here's what I learned" or any generic opener
The post is about: [paste title, funnel stage, core claim, and proof point]
The recommended hook structure is: [paste from step 2]
Generate 20 hook variations using this structure.
Constraints:
- Each hook must be under 280 characters (hard limit)
- Each hook must create a curiosity gap that cannot be resolved without clicking "see more"
- Each hook must include at least one specific element (a number, a named situation, a concrete detail)
- No two hooks should use the same opening word
- None of the hooks should sound like something any other LinkedIn creator in this niche would write
For each hook, also generate the re-hook line (under 10 words) that should appear
immediately after the "see more" fold.
Rank the 20 hooks by predicted click-through from strongest to weakest.
Las primeras 5 son las más obvias. Las variaciones 6-12 empiezan a ser creativas. Las 13-20 producen ángulos inesperados que son los más novedosos.
Objetivo: Filtrar hooks que suenan bien vs hooks que realmente van a funcionar.
Here are [20] hook variations for a LinkedIn post:
[paste all variations from step 3]
Score each hook on four dimensions (1-10 scale):
1. CURIOSITY: Does the reader feel compelled to click "see more" to resolve the gap?
10 = the gap is physically uncomfortable to leave open.
1 = the reader can guess the answer without clicking.
2. CLARITY: Does the reader immediately understand what the post is about?
10 = topic and relevance are clear in under 2 seconds.
1 = the reader isn't sure what they're looking at.
3. NOVELTY: Has the reader seen this exact formulation before in this niche?
10 = not a single word has appeared in a competitor's hook this month.
1 = this could be copy-pasted from any other creator in the space.
4. CLICK-THROUGH POTENTIAL: Accounting for all three scores above, how likely is a
qualified B2B [ICP type] scrolling LinkedIn on mobile to click "see more"?
10 = they stop scrolling and click without conscious decision.
1 = they scroll past without registering it.
Output a ranked table: hook text, curiosity score, clarity score, novelty score,
click-through score, total score, and a one-line note on the primary strength
and primary weakness.
Recommend the top 3 hooks for use, with the specific reason each one was selected
over the others.
Objetivo: Rescatar posts existentes que no funcionaron cambiando solo el hook.
Here is a LinkedIn post that underperformed:
[paste full post]
The current hook (first 280 characters):
[paste the hook]
This post got [X impressions / Y comments] against an account with [Z followers].
Expected performance for this account is [benchmark range].
Diagnose why the hook underperformed. Consider:
- Was the curiosity gap too weak or too easily resolved?
- Was the topic unclear in the first two lines?
- Was the language too generic or too similar to other posts in the niche?
- Did the hook fail to signal value or relevance to the ICP?
Then rewrite the hook 5 ways, each using a different structure.
Score each rewrite on the 4-dimension framework (curiosity, clarity, novelty, click-through).
Recommend the single strongest rewrite with a one-paragraph explanation of why it would
outperform the original.
Guardá esto como project file en Claude para tener siempre el contexto cargado:
<linkedin_hook_engineer>
You are a LinkedIn hook specialist for B2B founders.
Your job: engineer the first 280 characters of every LinkedIn post to maximize
"see more" click-through rate.
Constraints you always enforce:
- Hard limit: 280 characters including spaces
- The curiosity gap must NOT resolve before the fold
- At least one specific element per hook (number, name, concrete detail)
- No two consecutive posts should open with the same word or structure
- Never open with: "most people", "here's what", "i have a confession", "let me tell you"
Hook structures you draw from:
1. Hard result that raises "how" (number + mechanism implied but withheld)
2. Contradiction of current belief (states something the ICP believes is wrong)
3. Specific data point with counterintuitive implication
4. Identity-level challenge (threatens how the reader sees themselves)
5. Story opening (implies a narrative, withholds resolution)
6. Hybrid (combines 2 structures in one hook)
For every hook you generate, also generate:
- The re-hook line (under 10 words, placed immediately after "see more")
- A novelty check: "have I seen this exact formulation in this niche before?"
ICP: [paste ICP description]
Voice: [paste voice rules]
Hook pattern library: [paste the analysis from step 1]
</linkedin_hook_engineer>
Paso 1: Análisis ──→ Pattern library de 50 hooks de tu nicho
│
Paso 2: Matching ──→ 3 estructuras recomendadas para tu post
│
Paso 3: Generación ──→ 20 variaciones en tu tono de voz
│
Paso 4: Scoring ──→ Top 3 hooks rankeados en 4 dimensiones
│
Paso 5: Rescate ──→ Rewrite de hooks que underperformaron
Tiempo total primera iteración: ~60 min Tiempo por iteración siguiente: ~20-30 min
| Métrica | Baseline | Objetivo | Frecuencia |
|---|---|---|---|
| "See more" CTR | — | +40-60% | Por post |
| Impresiones por post | Benchmark actual | 2x | Semanal |
| Comentarios por post | Benchmark actual | 3x | Semanal |
| DMs inbound por post | Benchmark actual | 2x | Semanal |
SOP generado el 17 julio 2026. Basado en "how i engineer viral linkedin hooks with sonnet 5" por Paolo Trivellato (@paolo_scales). Framework validado con clientes B2B, mejora documentada del 40-60% en CTR de "see more".