← Catalog
skill Content

Thought Leadership

thought-leadership

Writes opinion pieces and thought leadership articles that position the author as an industry authority. Use when you need to publish a strong perspective on an industry topic.

Add this skill
  1. This skill, packaged and ready to upload. thought-leadership.zip
  2. In claude.ai or Claude desktop: Customize → Skills (+) → Create skill → Upload a skill, select the zip and toggle it on. Greyed out? Enable code execution under Settings → Capabilities.
  3. It’s live in your chats — no code, no setup. Want every Content skill at once? Add the whole plugin from the Content page (Customize → Personal plugins → Create plugin → Upload plugin).

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when you need to:

  • Write an opinion piece that stakes a clear position on an industry topic
  • Create thought leadership content that builds authority and credibility
  • Produce a perspective-driven article for a blog, LinkedIn, or industry publication
  • Publish a contrarian take or forward-looking prediction with supporting evidence

DO NOT use this skill for how-to content, listicles, or neutral informational articles. This is for opinion-driven, authority-building pieces.


Core Principle

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP WITHOUT A CLEAR OPINION IS JUST CONTENT — THE AUTHOR MUST TAKE A POSITION AND DEFEND IT WITH EVIDENCE AND EXPERIENCE.


Phase 1: Brief

Required Inputs

Input What to Ask Default
Topic / position "What is your opinion or argument?" No default — must be provided
Why now "Why is this relevant right now?" Industry trend or recent event
Author's credibility "What experience qualifies you to have this opinion?" No default — must be provided
Target audience "Who should read this and be influenced by it?" Industry peers and potential clients
Publication "Where will this be published? Blog, LinkedIn, industry publication?" Blog
Word count "Target length?" 1,200-1,800 words

GATE: Confirm brief before outlining.


Phase 2: Outline

Article Architecture

**H1:** [Declarative title that states the position]

**Hook** (~150 words) — Story, observation, or bold claim that sets up the argument

**H2: The Current State** (~300 words) — What most people believe or do today

**H2: Why That's Wrong / Incomplete** (~400 words) — The author's contrarian perspective with evidence

**H2: What I've Seen / Done Instead** (~400 words) — Personal experience and results

**H2: What This Means for You** (~300 words) — Practical implications for the reader

**Conclusion** (~150 words) — Restate the position and call to action

GATE: Approve outline before writing.


Phase 3: Write

Writing Rules

Rule Detail
State the opinion early The reader should know your position within the first 3 paragraphs
First person required Thought leadership demands personal voice — "I believe," "In my experience"
Evidence for every claim Data, case studies, or personal results back every argument
Acknowledge the other side Address counterarguments directly — it strengthens your position
No hedging "I think this might possibly be..." kills authority. State opinions confidently.
Concrete examples Abstract opinions are forgettable. Specific stories and numbers are memorable.
End with implications Tell the reader what to DO with this perspective

Opinion Strength Scale

Rate the piece before delivering:

  • Level 1 (Safe): Agreeable insight most people already hold — limited impact
  • Level 2 (Informed): A position backed by data that some will disagree with — good
  • Level 3 (Contrarian): Directly challenges conventional wisdom with strong evidence — best for thought leadership
  • Level 4 (Provocative): May alienate some readers but creates strong engagement — use with care

Target Level 2-3 for maximum thought leadership impact.

Structure Template

[HOOK: Specific moment, observation, or bold claim]

[THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM: What most people believe about this topic]

[THE PROBLEM: Why that belief is wrong, incomplete, or outdated]
- [Evidence point 1]
- [Evidence point 2]
- [Personal experience or data]

[THE ALTERNATIVE: What the author does/believes instead]
- [How it works]
- [Results achieved]
- [Why it's better]

[COUNTERARGUMENT: The strongest objection and your response to it]

[IMPLICATIONS: What this means for the reader and what they should do]

[CLOSE: Restate the position in one powerful sentence]

Phase 4: Polish

1. Thought Leadership Checklist

## Quality Checklist

- [ ] Author's position is clear within the first 3 paragraphs
- [ ] At least one contrarian or non-obvious insight
- [ ] Every claim is backed by evidence (data, experience, or case study)
- [ ] Counterarguments are acknowledged and addressed
- [ ] Written in first person with personal voice
- [ ] No hedging language ("might," "could possibly," "it seems")
- [ ] Ends with practical implications for the reader
- [ ] Opinion strength is Level 2 or 3
- [ ] Article would generate discussion if posted on LinkedIn
- [ ] Author's credibility is established early

2. Distribution Notes

  • LinkedIn: Share with a personal hook paragraph that teases the contrarian angle
  • Email list: Send a condensed version with a link to the full piece
  • Social media: Pull 3-5 standalone quotes for social posts

Example: "Why I Stopped A/B Testing Everything (And Revenue Went Up)"

Position: Obsessive A/B testing wastes more money than it saves for small businesses
Credibility: Ran 200+ A/B tests over 3 years at a 7-figure e-commerce company
Evidence: 80% of tests were inconclusive, opportunity cost of test setup exceeded gains

Outline:
Hook: "I spent $40K on A/B testing last year. Net revenue impact: -$12K."
Current state: The industry worships A/B testing as the path to optimization
Why it's wrong: At small traffic levels, most tests never reach significance
What I do instead: Make decisive changes based on qualitative data and customer conversations
Implications: Stop testing everything. Start listening to customers.

Anti-Patterns

  • No clear opinion — "Here are some thoughts on marketing" is a blog post, not thought leadership. Take a position.
  • All opinion, no evidence — hot takes without data are social media posts, not authoritative articles.
  • Hedging throughout — "This might not work for everyone, but perhaps..." undermines every argument. Commit to the opinion.
  • Attacking people instead of ideas — criticize practices and approaches, never individuals or companies by name.
  • No personal experience — thought leadership without "I tried this and here's what happened" reads as theory, not authority.
  • Burying the opinion — do not make the reader wait until paragraph 8 to discover your actual position.

Recovery

  • No strong opinion: Ask "What do you believe about [topic] that most of your peers would disagree with?" If they cannot answer, brainstorm 5 contrarian takes and pick the one they feel strongest about.
  • Opinion is too safe: Push toward a Level 3 position. Ask "What would a bolder version of this argument look like?"
  • No supporting data: Substitute with detailed personal experience and specific results. First-person evidence is powerful even without external data.
  • Author is uncomfortable being controversial: Frame it as "informed disagreement" rather than controversy. Focus on sharing a better approach rather than attacking the current one.
  • Piece reads like a rant: Add structure — acknowledge counterarguments, provide evidence, and end with constructive implications.

View source on GitHub →