Manus for LinkedIn: Sourced Research to a Post

Manus for LinkedIn

Analysts have opinions that depend on evidence, and the evidence takes hours to gather. That is the work Manus is built for: long tasks across many pages that end in one organized result. The weak point of any long autonomous task is trust. Which page did a number come from, and did two sources really agree? This page shows how to ask for a research brief that makes the post checkable, using an energy-market analyst as the example, and how Tareno takes the finished text into a draft that a person reads before anything reaches LinkedIn.

Example: an energy analyst writes about grid connection queues

Imagine an analyst at an energy consultancy who wants to comment on waiting times for grid connections. She gives Manus six approved sources, the point of view she wants to argue and the audience, project developers. Manus compares the sources, notes that two of them define waiting time differently and returns a brief with seven facts, each with its source and date. She picks four, and Manus drafts a 230-word post that states her view first, uses only those facts and links one source. It confirms her profile with list_accounts, saves the text through create_drafts and returns the brief next to the draft ID. A colleague reads both in Tareno, and she requests a Monday slot that waits as a pending action.

Step by step

1. 01

   Use the tested custom connection

   In Manus, add Tareno through the custom MCP option with OAuth and your own account.

2. 02

   Name the sources and the view

   List the sources Manus may use, the sources it must not use and the point of view you want to argue. A research task without a source list produces text you cannot verify.

3. 03

   Ask for the brief before the post

   Request a brief with each fact, its source, its date and any place where sources disagree. Choose the facts that stay, and drop the rest before drafting.

4. 04

   Draft from the chosen facts only

   Ask for a post of about 230 words that states your view first and uses only the chosen facts. Keep the brief next to the draft so a reviewer can verify each line.

5. 05

   Save draft and brief together

   Manus confirms the account with list_accounts and saves the post through create_drafts. Paste the brief into your review thread, because Tareno stores the post text, not the research behind it.

6. 06

   Request a slot and approve it

   Give a date, a time and an IANA time zone. Tareno holds the request as a pending action until you approve it in the dashboard.

Prompts to copy

Use only these sources: [URLs]. Compare what they say about [waiting times for grid connections] and return a brief with each fact, its source, its date and any place where two sources define the term differently. Do not write a post yet.

Write a LinkedIn post of about 230 words for [project developers] that argues this view: [view]. Use only facts [1, 3, 4 and 6] from the brief, state my view in the first line and link the source of the strongest fact. Mark opinion as opinion.

Compare the draft with the brief line by line and tell me about any sentence that says more than its source. Rewrite those sentences, and do not save anything to Tareno until I confirm the final text.

Use Tareno to confirm my LinkedIn account [name] and save the final text as a draft. Return the draft ID next to the brief, so a colleague can check each claim, and do not request a publishing time yet.

Mistakes to avoid

• Letting Manus search the open web without a source list. You cannot check what you cannot trace, and weak pages creep in.
• Using a fact whose definition differs between sources. Choose one definition, say which, and keep it consistent in the post.
• Losing the brief. Tareno stores the post, not the research, so keep the brief where reviewers can open it next to the draft.
• Treating a long task as proof of quality. The brief shows where a fact came from; a person decides whether that source is good enough.