This analysis was created with FluffFilter, a content quality tool that provides surgical fixes for 20+ content types. Learn more →

Social Media Post
REVISE

LinkedIn Post

3.2 / 5

Required Elements

Strong Opening

Good hook with clear promise of value, creates curiosity

Concrete Detail

Error handling example is mentioned but lacks depth; chart reference is vague without the actual chart

Engagement Hook

Ends with directive statement, no invitation for discussion or response

What to Fix

Critical Gaps

  • No engagement invitation—post ends with a command rather than inviting discussion
  • Chart reference is meaningless without context—readers can't see what 'orange and red stuff' means
  • Error handling example is underdeveloped—needs specific numbers or real scenario
  • Core insight about specialization is valid but not novel—many career advice posts say similar things
  • Missing proof points—no data on salary differences or career outcomes from this approach

Priority Fixes

1

Final two paragraphs about the chart

Problem

References a chart readers cannot see, making the conclusion meaningless. Ends with directive instead of engagement hook.

Fix

Delete chart reference entirely. Replace final paragraph with: "What's an unsexy engineering skill you got really good at that ended up being your career differentiator? I'm curious what others have found."

Why this matters

Removes confusing chart reference and adds specific question that invites engineers to share their experiences, driving comments

2

Error handling example (paragraph 3-4)

Problem

Example is mentioned but lacks concrete detail—no numbers, no specific scenario that makes it memorable

Fix

Replace with: "Example: Error handling. I once joined a company where 40% of user support tickets were 'the app just says ERROR.' No context. No recovery path. I spent 3 months building a proper error system—our support tickets dropped 60% and I became the go-to person for observability."

Why this matters

Specific numbers (40%, 60%, 3 months) plus concrete outcome makes the point tangible and credible

3

Paragraph about 'different orgs have different priorities'

Problem

Vague claim about pay differences with no supporting evidence or specific example

Fix

Replace with: "A friend specialized in database query optimization—unsexy work most devs avoid. When he interviewed at a fintech with massive scale problems, they offered him $40K above their standard band because nobody else in their pipeline had that depth."

Why this matters

Concrete salary number and specific scenario transforms abstract claim into believable, actionable insight

4

Opening sentence

Problem

Hook is good but could be sharper with more specificity about the mistake

Fix

Replace with: "I've reviewed 200+ software engineer applications this year. 80% make the same mistake: they all look identical."

Why this matters

Adds credibility through specific numbers and sharpens the curiosity—what makes them identical?

Score Breakdown

Hook Strength

4 / 5

Specificity

2 / 5

Insight Novelty

3 / 5

Engagement Design

2 / 5

Format Optimization

5 / 5

Ready to analyze your own documents?

Get instant, detailed feedback on your content with FluffFilter. Start your free 7-day trial today.

Start Free Trial

7-day trial • 15 analyses • All features included