---
name: profile-sharpener-astro
description: ASTRO-aligned workflow for sharpening LinkedIn and other public professional profiles so they are searchable, credible, evidence-backed, and coherent across hiring, founder, executive, product, and startup audiences without sounding desperate, inflated, or internally contradictory.
version: 1.0
---

# Profile Sharpener

## Purpose

A public professional profile is not a résumé dump and it is not an advertisement.  It is a compact decision surface.

Its job is to let a serious reader understand quickly:

1. who this person is;
2. what operating problems they are unusually good at solving;
3. what evidence supports that positioning;
4. what they are doing now;
5. what kinds of conversations make sense next.

Profile Sharpener is designed for people whose public identity has to work for more than one legitimate audience at the same time, such as founders who may also be attractive senior hires, operators building a company while advising others, or executives whose technical depth should remain visible.

## Core rule

`PUBLIC PROFILE = CLEAR IDENTITY + SEARCHABLE CAPABILITY + PROOF + CURRENT DIRECTION - DESPERATION - CONTRADICTION`

Do not optimize one field in isolation.  Headline, banner, About, current position, Featured work, experience, skills, and public activity should tell the same professional story from different angles.

# Inputs

Before rewriting, collect:

- current public headline;
- current banner text and claims;
- current position/title;
- target audiences ranked by importance;
- target roles or conversations;
- current company/founder status;
- verified prior employers and titles;
- strongest quantified outcomes;
- technical/domain keywords that recur in desired roles;
- current products, projects, or work samples worth showing;
- leadership evidence and management philosophy;
- geographic/work-arrangement constraints that are safe to publish;
- whether job-search visibility should be public or recruiter-only;
- any startup, accelerator, funding, applicant, or affiliation claims that require strict truth checking.

Never invent a credential, customer, metric, employer, product stage, investment, accelerator status, or availability state.

# Audience order

Rank the audiences before editing.  A common order is:

1. direct hiring manager / startup founder;
2. recruiter or talent partner;
3. customer, partner, investor, or accelerator reviewer;
4. professional peer or referral source;
5. general public.

If two audiences create a real contradiction, do not hide it with vague copy.  Resolve the contradiction through accurate public positioning and private targeting settings where available.

# Headline rule

The headline should do three jobs:

1. identify the current professional identity;
2. contain the role/domain terms a relevant person would reasonably search for;
3. provide compact credibility without becoming a brand-name or keyword dump.

Preferred structure:

`CURRENT IDENTITY | CORE OPERATING DOMAIN | 2–4 SEARCHABLE CAPABILITIES | SELECTED CREDIBILITY`

Examples of useful credibility include a founder role, a known prior employer, a technical domain, or a specific operating specialty.  Use only verified claims.

## Headline rejection list

Reject headlines dominated by:

- `Open to Work`, `Seeking`, `Looking for my next opportunity`, or equivalent need-first language;
- generic adjectives such as visionary, passionate, dynamic, results-driven, strategic thinker, or servant leader without evidence;
- a list of more brands than capabilities;
- a product tagline that makes the human operator impossible to classify;
- ambiguous phrases that no hiring manager or customer would search for;
- repeated synonyms inserted only to game search.

A founder can use `Founder` publicly while still remaining searchable for operating roles.  Pair the founder identity with exact functional language rather than forcing the profile to choose between founder credibility and professional discoverability.

# Founder / hireable dual-track rule

A dual-track profile must not look confused.

Use this pattern:

- public headline: competence, identity, domain, proof;
- public About: current building work plus prior operating evidence;
- recruiter-only job-search settings when appropriate;
- direct conversations for immediate availability or detailed role preferences;
- Featured section: working proof, not a public plea for employment.

Do not publicly claim both `full-time, all-in founder` and `available immediately for any job`.  If the actual situation is nuanced, write the public profile around capability and serious conversations rather than contradictory commitment claims.

# Ex-company / pedigree rule

`ex-Company` can be useful shorthand when the employment is true and relevant.

Rules:

- keep it selective, usually 2–4 names maximum;
- prefer recognizable or directly relevant employers;
- do not let pedigree replace current capability;
- ensure the Experience section substantiates every name;
- avoid implying executive seniority, acquisition outcomes, or product ownership that did not exist.

The test is simple: if the brands were removed, the headline should still explain what the person does.

# About section

The About section should read like a senior operator explaining how they work, not a cover letter.

Recommended sequence:

1. **Operating thesis** — one or two sentences describing the problems the person repeatedly solves.
2. **Current work** — what they are building, leading, or operating now.
3. **Prior proof** — selected employers, scope, outcomes, and cross-functional range.
4. **Leadership behavior** — what teammates experience in practice.
5. **Direction** — the kinds of teams, problems, or conversations that fit next.

Use short paragraphs.  Add a compact proof block only when it improves scanability.

## Leadership rule

Prefer behavior over labels.

Instead of:

`Servant leader who empowers teams.`

Prefer evidence such as:

`I give people context, remove blockers, make ownership clear, and take responsibility when the system fails.`

Leadership language should show how the person creates conditions for other people to succeed.

# Current position

The current Experience title is both a credibility field and a classification field.

A founder title may include the most important operating domains when accurate, for example:

`Founder | AI Systems, Customer Success & Technical Operations`

The description should answer:

- what is being built or operated now;
- what is working today;
- who it is for;
- what the founder/operator personally owns;
- what is still being validated.

Do not turn a current founder entry into a catalogue of every experiment ever attempted.

# Experience section

For each relevant role:

`SCOPE -> ACTION -> OUTCOME -> OPERATING RANGE`

Prioritize:

- customer/revenue scope;
- team/process ownership;
- difficult technical or cross-functional work;
- quantified outcomes with clear attribution;
- promotion, acquisition, or organizational context only when it materially clarifies the role.

Avoid copying a résumé verbatim.  A LinkedIn Experience entry should be easy to scan and rich in the exact domain language the target audience uses.

# Featured section

Default to 3 high-signal items rather than a wall of links.

A strong order is often:

1. current flagship work or strongest public proof;
2. professional evidence / selected work page or case study;
3. reusable system, technical artifact, article, or methodology that demonstrates how the person thinks.

Do not feature every side project.  Breadth is credible only when the visitor can still identify the main thing.

# Skills

Use exact, defensible capability terms that appear in real target roles.

Prefer a concentrated set of role/domain skills over a large collection of vague endorsements.  Pin the skills that best connect current direction to demonstrated history.

Skill keywords must also appear naturally in the headline, About, and Experience where truthful.  Do not keyword-stuff.

# Banner

The banner should reinforce the profile, not repeat it word for word.

A banner may show:

- current company/product;
- one operating thesis;
- a small number of capability pillars;
- verified contact or portfolio paths;
- a truthful current accelerator/application status.

Do not display `Applicant`, `Accepted`, `YC-backed`, `funded`, `advisor`, `partner`, or similar status unless it is literally true at publication time.

If an application is only planned or being prepared, say so accurately or omit the status.

# Public activity

A strong profile should have proof of current professional life, but posting frequency is not a substitute for substance.

Useful activity includes:

- a build note with a concrete lesson;
- a customer/operating insight with confidential details removed;
- a reusable method or skill;
- a product validation result;
- a thoughtful comment that demonstrates judgment.

Avoid public activity that repeatedly asks for work, attacks former employers, exposes private hiring processes, or makes every post a product advertisement.

# Triple devil's-advocate pass

Every final profile must survive three adversarial readers.

## Pass 1 — Hiring manager / recruiter

Ask:

- Can I tell what roles this person can credibly do?
- Are the important terms searchable and specific?
- Does `Founder` make them look unavailable or does the rest of the profile resolve that?
- Is there evidence beyond self-description?
- Does the profile look senior without sounding inflated?

## Pass 2 — Founder / investor / accelerator reviewer

Ask:

- Is the current company/product focus understandable?
- Does the person look capable of building and operating, not just branding?
- Are startup/application claims current and truthful?
- Does the profile reveal conviction or does it look like a random portfolio of experiments?
- Would public job-seeking language create a commitment contradiction?

## Pass 3 — Skeptical peer / customer

Ask:

- Which claims would I challenge?
- Are metrics attributed clearly?
- Are `ex-Company` signals earned rather than borrowed prestige?
- Does leadership language describe behavior instead of virtue signaling?
- Does the person sound useful to work with?

If any pass finds a material credibility problem, rewrite before publishing.

# Desperation filter

Remove need-first language from public positioning.

Usually reject:

- `Please keep me in mind`;
- `I need my next role`;
- `Available immediately` as the main brand message;
- unemployment duration;
- repeated public asks for referrals;
- compensation need;
- generic motivational framing about the job search.

The profile should sell through specificity, proof, current work, and a clear direction.  Availability can be communicated privately or in a restrained closing line when it is genuinely useful.

# Startup / YC truth filter

Before publishing any accelerator or startup status:

1. identify the exact current state;
2. separate planned application from submitted application;
3. separate applicant from interview selection;
4. separate interview selection from acceptance;
5. separate acceptance from funding or program participation;
6. use the least inflated wording that is still accurate.

Never imply endorsement or affiliation from intent alone.

# Final acceptance test

Before publishing, verify:

- headline identifies the person within seconds;
- headline includes real role/domain keywords without stuffing;
- current founder/operator identity is coherent with target hiring visibility;
- About opens with an operating thesis, not a job-search plea;
- current work has one understandable center of gravity;
- prior proof is quantified and attributable;
- leadership is demonstrated through behavior;
- ex-company shorthand is selective and substantiated;
- Featured items are few and high-signal;
- top skills match actual target work;
- banner and profile do not contradict each other;
- accelerator/application status is literally true;
- no private or confidential evidence leaks into public copy;
- the profile survives the recruiter, founder/investor, and skeptical-peer passes;
- there is no desperation language.

## Definition of done

A sharpened profile makes a relevant reader think:

`I understand what this person does, I can see why they are credible, and I know why a conversation with them could be useful.`

Not:

`This person wants something from me.`