Share on Linkedin Projects

LinkedIn's Projects section lives on the profile itself, under Experience/Accomplishments — it isn't a feed post, has no algorithm deciding its reach, and isn't time-bound the way a post is. It's found three ways: someone visits the profile directly, it surfaces in LinkedIn's internal search (recruiters and connections filtering by skill or keyword), or it's indexed by an external search engine on the public profile page. That makes it evergreen, portfolio content read by someone who already has a reason to be looking — a recruiter doing diligence, a mutual connection checking credibility, a potential collaborator sizing up fit — rather than a passive scroller deciding whether to stop.

Start

• Line 1: "<title>"
• Line 2: blank
• Line 3: "• Link: <url>"
• Line 4: "• Tags: <hashtags up to 70 characaters>"
• Line 5: "• Keywords: <comma-separated keywords up to 70 characaters>"

Sections

• "Summary:" One paragraph like a newspaper (who, what, where, when, how, why).
• "Benefits:" Focus on the benefits for the reader.
• "Why this matters:" Focus on what it adds to the reader.
• "Please share:" Focus on how/why/where the reader can forward this project.
• "Advice welcome:" be humble, ask for help, encourage advice.
• "Associated skills:" five keywors that go in the separate web form separate Skills selector, not part of the description.

Focus

• Why to share. Focus on why the reader could/should share it.
• Examples/excerpts. Focus on specific examples and excerpts.
• Facts. What's the problem that this project aims to solve.

NO:

• No tech stack. Do not say the tech implementation; covered elsewhere.
• No AI callout. Do not say AI assistance; it's covered elsewhere.
• No language listing. Do not say translations; it's covered elsewhere.
• No counts. Do not say page counts, part counts, chapter counts, etc.
• No violence. Do not use metaphors of war, scars, wounds, pain, etc.
• No team section. Do not write about a solo team, team members, etc.
• No special formmating. Do not bold, not italic, not bullet lists.
• No "if". Do not say "If you do X then Y"; instead use positive.
• No run-on sentences. Do not use many clauses nor too many words.
• No passive voice. Do not use passive, or non-subject, sentences.

Length:

• 1800-2000 characters.

What works on LinkedIn Projects

• It's read with intent, not scrolled past. The reader already chose to look at the profile; the job of the entry is to reward that attention with a clear, specific account of the project, not to earn a stop the way a feed hook does.
• Keywords genuinely matter here. LinkedIn's internal search (and, for public profiles, external search engines) can surface a Projects entry to someone who's never heard of the author — using the actual terms a recruiter or peer would search for (a named discipline, tool, or methodology) does real discovery work that hashtags would do on other platforms.
• Tagging team members is the real "share" lever. Adding a connection as a team member notifies them and, once they confirm, the project appears on their profile too — this is the mechanism that extends an entry beyond the author's own profile, not a repost or boost.
• The associated skills field is a discovery tag, not decoration. Skills attached to a project feed LinkedIn's recruiter-search filters and skill-endorsement system — pick the two or three a search would actually use, not a long list.
• A URL and media are native, not a workaround. Unlike a feed post, a link here isn't penalized — attach the project's actual link plus a screenshot or cover image directly in the entry.
• It's a durable landing page, not a moment. Since nothing about it decays the way a feed post's reach window does, it rewards being genuinely complete (what it is, the author's role, the outcome) rather than optimized for a single day's engagement.

Associated skills

Skills attached to a Projects entry work the way hashtags work elsewhere: they're the tag a stranger's search actually turns up. Pick two to five that are specific and accurate to the project (a named discipline, technique, or tool) rather than broad ones every profile already lists — a specific skill is both more credible and more likely to match a recruiter's or collaborator's actual filter. Skills that don't genuinely apply dilute the entry's credibility without adding reach.

Structure for a description up to 2000 characters

Even with no truncation-driven feed hook to write around, most profile viewers skim before committing to read fully — the discipline of front-loading the point still matters, just for a different reason.

1. A clear, specific project title. Not a slogan — the actual name a search or a skimming recruiter would recognize.
2. First ~140 characters — what it is and why it might matter, stated plainly enough to work for a stranger with zero prior context, since this is what a search result or notification preview shows.
3. One honest, personal line. Why it exists, what it took, or what's still uncertain — the detail that reads as a person describing real work, not a resume bullet.
4. The author's actual role and what the project involved, in plain terms — this is what a recruiter or collaborator is actually evaluating.
5. One specific ask. A kind of feedback wanted, a use case not yet considered, or an invitation to reach out — something a reader can act on by messaging directly, since there's no comment thread here to invite replies into.
6. The link and a screenshot or cover image, attached natively.
7. Team members tagged, for any collaborator who's also on LinkedIn and consents to being associated with the project.

Key components

• Specific, searchable language — the terms a recruiter or peer would type, used naturally in the description, not stuffed in.
• Humility over resume-speak — "here's what I built and what I'm still refining" reads as more credible to someone doing diligence than achievement-only phrasing.
• A message-able ask — phrased for someone to act on by reaching out directly, since this format has no comment thread to invite replies into.
• Team members tagged deliberately, as the entry's actual distribution mechanism, not an afterthought.
• Pairing with a feed post — the Projects entry is the durable landing page; a Share on Linkedin post announcing it is what actually drives people to visit the profile and find it.

Common pitfalls

• Treating it like a feed post — writing for a scroll-stopping hook when the actual reader already chose to look, and needs substance more than a hook.
• Vague, resume-bullet phrasing ("led a project to improve outcomes") with none of the specific, searchable detail that makes the entry findable or credible.
• Skipping the associated skills field, losing the entry's main path into recruiter and peer search.
• Forgetting to tag team members, missing the one mechanism this format has for reaching beyond the author's own profile visitors.
• No link or media attached, leaving a reader with no way to actually go see the project.
• Publishing the entry alone, with no companion feed post pointing people to it — an entry no one is told about mostly sits unread.

Learn more

• Share on Linkedin for the companion feed post that drives people to this entry — the two work together, not as alternatives.
• Share on Bluesky, Share on Facebook, Share on Instagram, Share on Mastodon, and Share on Threads for the same announcement adapted to each platform's own feed norms and character budget.
• Copywriting for persuasive-copy technique this style deliberately underplays in favor of a plainer, personal voice.
• Content Calendar for coordinating this entry's publication with the feed post that announces it.
• Branding for keeping the personal voice here consistent with how the project is described elsewhere.