Is your LinkedIn post actually good?

Because it would be a made-up number. No tool that runs in your browser can know how LinkedIn's real feed ranking or a real audience will respond to your post, so claiming a score or an engagement percentage would be inventing precision that does not exist. This tool works the same way Blendin's own brand-color extractor does: it shows a real, checkable finding, or it says nothing, and it never fabricates one. Instead of a score, every check resolves to a plain label, Strong, Needs work, or Missing, with a written explanation of why. The one number on the page, how many of the 8 checks got flagged, is a transparent count of real findings you can read for yourself, not a prediction.

They answer two different questions. The AI Writing Checker asks does this sound like AI, and looks for em dashes, buzzwords, and hype openers. This tool asks is this a well-crafted post, and checks the hook, sentence rhythm, where the see more fold cuts you off, specificity, repetition, your call to action, unsupported claims, and formatting. Run this one first for craft, then the AI Writing Checker for tone. If this tool spots em or en dashes in your draft, it links straight to the AI Writing Checker for the full breakdown instead of repeating its work.

No. Everything runs in your browser using plain JavaScript, with no server call at all. Your draft is never uploaded, logged, or transmitted anywhere, and it disappears the moment you close or refresh the tab. That is also why even an unpublished or sensitive draft is safe to paste here.

It flags a sentence that states a number, a stat, or an absolute word like always, never, or guaranteed with no source or hedge nearby, for example a sentence with a percentage and nothing else around it. It is not accusing you of lying. The suggested fix is always the same: state where the number comes from, or soften the wording with a phrase like in my experience or roughly. Plenty of true, well-written claims still get flagged this way if they have no attribution in the same sentence, so read each flag as a prompt to add context, not as a correction.

Yes. The hook, reading flow, specificity, repetition, call to action, claims, and formatting checks work on a two-line post or a ten-paragraph one. The see more fold check is the one dimension tied to length: it only becomes meaningful once your post passes the roughly 210 characters LinkedIn shows before the fold on desktop, the same threshold used on the LinkedIn Character Counter. A short post that never reaches the fold gets marked Strong on that check by default, since there is nothing hidden to worry about.

Yes. There is no account, no email, and no credit card. Paste your draft, press Analyze, and the notes appear instantly. Like every free tool on this site, it allows a limited number of runs per browser per day to keep it from being scripted, but any results you already produced stay fully visible even after that daily allowance is used up.

The craft checks, hook, reading flow, specificity, repetition, call to action, claims, and formatting, are useful for any short-form post. The see more fold check is specifically tuned to LinkedIn's own cutoff, so treat that one dimension as LinkedIn-only; the rest apply just as well to a caption written for another network.