linkedin-mcp-server is a local MCP server that gives compatible AI assistants access to LinkedIn through a logged-in browser session. Agents can use it to inspect profiles and companies, search jobs, retrieve job details, and manage certain LinkedIn interactions. The catalogue add-ons operate this server and expose its LinkedIn workflows to agents.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server/main/.agents/skills/1-triage-issues/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-serverWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server/1-triage-issues)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server/1-triage-issues"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server/1-triage-issues/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server/1-triage-issues"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server/1-triage-issues.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00029 | $0.01876 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00750 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00375 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00188 |
Grade A, and why
1-triage-issues scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 24d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
Copies of this mod
5 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- 1-triage-issues — 100% identical, 88 lines differ
- 1-triage-issues — 100% identical, 88 lines differ
- 1-triage-issues — 100% identical, 88 lines differ
- 1-triage-issues — 100% identical, 88 lines differ
- 1-triage-issues — 100% identical, 88 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Triage open issues and PRs
Turn the live state of stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server into a maintainer priority list. Read-only. No checkout, no labels, no comments, no closure, no reproduction.
Reproduction belongs in /2-repro-issue. PR verification belongs in /3-verify-pr-fix.
Inputs
$ARGUMENTS is optional. If set, treat as a label name (bug, enhancement) or freetext filter. Otherwise scan everything open.
1. Gather
REPO=stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server
# Issues (gh calls the reactions field `reactionGroups`, not `reactions`)
gh issue list --repo $REPO --state open --limit 200 \
--json number,title,labels,createdAt,updatedAt,author,comments,reactionGroups,body
# PRs
gh pr list --repo $REPO --state open --limit 100 \
--json number,title,labels,createdAt,updatedAt,author,mergeable,mergeStateStatus,statusCheckRollup,additions,deletions,changedFiles,reviewDecision,isDraft,headRepositoryOwner
# Cross-link issues ↔ PRs via body references
gh search prs --repo $REPO --state open --json number,body,title --limit 100
Build a map issue_number → [referencing_pr_numbers] by scanning PR bodies for Closes #, Fixes #, Resolves #, plain #N.
If $ARGUMENTS is given, filter both lists before scoring.
Read each issue body and its comments, including linked canonical issues.
2. Packet admission
Before severity, age, reach, or contributor ranking, classify every open issue.
| Packet state | Maintainer action |
|---|---|
| Material evidence missing | Recommend needs more info with the specific missing fields. Exclude it from the reproduction shortlist. Existing labels alone do not prove completeness. |
| Evidence supplied after a request | Read the new evidence. Recommend removing needs more info only when it resolves the material gap. A new comment does not automatically clear the label. |
| Same underlying report as a canonical issue | Note unique reviewed evidence for the canonical issue. Recommend a Duplicate of #N comment and a separate close, each with an explicit yes. Do not post or close here. |
| Evaluable bug or feature | Continue to scoring. Completeness is not a promise of implementation. |
| Source evidence supports a narrower claim than the reporter's explanation | State that narrower finding. Ask for targeted missing evidence only if the next decision needs it. |
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 24d ago Changed 72539fe2ad3e
- 25d ago Changed cef96971da4a
- 1mo ago Changed · +20 lines · -109 tokens per session af1270d5efe9
- 1mo ago Changed 2ece677ce067
- 1mo ago First seen · 99 lines · 138 tokens per session scan A 4d947111aab8
1-triage-issues is a skill published in the GitHub repository stickerdaniel/linkedin-mcp-server (4,014 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,876 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
live-audit
Audit steam-games-mcp — build/test/lint gate, live MCP tool edge-case sweep (input validation, SteamID64/vanity/appid edge cases, key-gating), and source-level code review. Use when asked to test/audit the published or just-fixed steam-games-mcp package, hunt for bugs/edge cases, or repeat "the same kind of testing as…
tool-description-check
Self-check a new or edited MCP tool description/field .describe() text before committing — verify every behavioral claim against live testing or source, check for contradictions with sibling tools, and score against Glama's Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS) rubric. Use whenever a tool description or schema field…
gitnexus-pr-review
Use when the user wants to review a pull request, understand what a PR changes, assess risk of merging, or check for missing test coverage. Examples: "Review this PR", "What does PR #42 change?", "Is this PR safe to merge?".
gitnexus-impact-analysis
Use when the user wants to know what will break if they change something, or needs safety analysis before editing code. Examples: "Is it safe to change X?", "What depends on this?", "What will break?".
gitnexus-refactoring
Use when the user wants to rename, extract, split, move, or restructure code safely. Examples: "Rename this function", "Extract this into a module", "Refactor this class", "Move this to a separate file".
liveagent-code-review
Review an open GitHub pull request or the current local branch and working tree with parallel, independent reviewers and evidence-based validation. Use when the user asks for code review, invokes the Code Review action from Git Review, or explicitly mentions this skill.