Status: public, account-safe outreach playbook for growing proompteng/bilig.
Goal: earn legitimate attention from developers who already care about spreadsheet engines, workbook automation, local-first software, coding agents, formula semantics, or open-source infrastructure. Do not optimize for evading platform enforcement. Optimize for useful replies that would still make sense if the link were removed.
X’s own rules, updated in April 2026, say unsolicited automated replies based only on keyword searches are not permitted. Its developer guidelines require official API use instead of scraping or browser automation, and its behavior guidance treats repeated duplicated unsolicited replies as spam. That makes the correct strategy simple: fewer replies, higher fit, and no automation.
Use a hard cap until the account has real inbound discussion:
0-2 high-fit replies per day0-1 link-bearing replies per day1 reply in a single thread unless someone asks a follow-upThis is not about hiding from filters. It is about keeping the account useful enough that a person reading the reply sees a relevant contribution, not a growth tactic.
Good targets:
Bad targets:
Keep the tone close to the common builder style on X: lowercase, direct, short, and specific. Avoid polished marketing language.
Useful shape:
Avoid:
Checked on 2026-05-07 from public X pages and indexed web results for @sama.
Recent high-engagement posts and replies tend to be compressed, casual, and
low-friction:
Use that shape only as a tone reference. Do not impersonate anyone, copy
phrasing, or turn posts into vague ai hype. For bilig, the useful version is
lowercase and human but still specific: workbook state, formula parity,
readback, fixtures, examples, and measured caveats.
What is working:
Working tone for bilig:
Good one-line reply shapes:
the grid is the ui. workbook state is the api the agent needs to mutate and verify.
the hard part is not generating formulas. it is proving ranges, formulas, recalc, and export still match after edits.
i think "excel compatible" has to be replaced with fixture-scoped claims and verifier commands.
These are hand-picked targets from the logged-in Atlas X session. Do not treat this as a scraping queue. Use it as a small manual queue and stop after the first reply unless a real follow-up appears.
Target: https://x.com/ChatGPTapp/status/2051776032127238266
Why it fits:
bilig adds the adjacent developer angle: typed workbook operations and
verification for agents outside the browser grid.Draft reply:
this is exactly the direction. one thing we keep hitting while building bilig is
that agents need typed workbook operations and verification hooks, not
screenshots of grids.
open-source node api if useful for anyone experimenting:
https://github.com/proompteng/bilig
Lower-promotion variant:
this is exactly the direction. the thing i keep wanting for agents is typed
workbook operations + verification hooks, not screenshots of grids.
the grid is the ui. workbook state is the api.
Use the linked version only if the maintainer account is comfortable clearly owning the project in the reply. Use the no-link version when the thread feels too crowded or the account needs more normal participation before linking.
Follow-up artifact if anyone engages:
docs/why-agents-need-workbook-apis.md for the conceptual argumentexamples/headless-workpaper for the runnable Node examplenpm run agent:verify inside that example when someone asks what
writeback verification looks likeTarget: https://x.com/IM_Aeneas/status/2050729841947709822
Why it fits:
bilig can add a maintainer-level point about workbook operations,
recalculation correctness, persistence, and readback.Draft reply:
probably means the serious ones have to go deeper than chat around cells.
the hard part is typed workbook ops, import/export fidelity, recalculation
correctness, and verification after edits.
Only add a repo link if someone asks what an implementation of that boundary looks like. If that happens, link the website or adoption kit rather than dropping the repository into the first reply.
Target: https://x.com/AudreyLimsAi/status/2052019390225555807
Why it fits:
Draft reply:
this is the right product surface.
the infrastructure layer i keep watching is whether the agent can prove what it
changed: ranges, formulas, recalc, readback, and export fidelity.
Target: https://x.com/KieranJame86217/status/2051998803771949424
Why it fits:
Draft reply:
yeah, the interesting bit is making the instructions operational.
not just "remember how i like models", but stable workbook ops the add-in can
run and then verify after edits.
Target: https://x.com/gardnersmitha/status/2051456316942458898
Why it fits:
bilig only if asked for open-source infrastructure
examples.examples/headless-workpaper package and its
npm run agent:verify command as the concrete artifact.Draft reply:
direct data access is a big deal.
the other half i care about for spreadsheet agents is writeback verification:
after the model changes a workbook, can you inspect formulas/ranges and prove
what changed.
Query used manually in Atlas:
("excel add-in" OR "spreadsheet automation" OR "workbook automation") (agent OR chatgpt OR ai)
Do not work this like a lead list. Pick one high-fit thread, reply once, and then wait. If a thread is mostly a launch announcement for another product, use a no-link technical reply or skip it.
Target: https://x.com/moalzq/status/2051147753993224594
Why it fits:
bilig angle is not another UI demo; it is post-action workbook
verification, formulas, ranges, persistence, and readback.Draft reply:
this is the right direction for spreadsheet agents.
the part i keep wanting after "it writes code until done" is a boring
verification layer: what ranges changed, what formulas recalculated, and can the
workbook round-trip after the edit.
Only add a link if someone asks for implementation evidence. Then use:
i have been building the headless version of that layer here:
https://github.com/proompteng/bilig/tree/main/examples/headless-workpaper
the useful command is npm run agent:verify because it checks writeback instead
of only showing a grid demo.
Target: https://x.com/Kcherupalli/status/2049149610187165716
Why it fits:
Draft reply:
this is the part most demos skip.
spreadsheet automation needs fixtures and failure states, not just a happy-path
agent run. once it breaks, you need to know whether extraction, formulas,
writeback, or export changed.
Do not include a link in the first reply. If the author asks about tooling, point to the XLSX verifier walkthrough or the headless WorkPaper example.
Target: https://x.com/joserod__/status/2047402008882085973
Why it fits:
Draft reply:
i would separate product surface from automation substrate.
an add-in is where the user talks to the workbook. the substrate is the boring
part underneath: typed workbook ops, recalc, writeback checks, persistence, and
import/export fidelity.
No link first. If someone asks for a concrete open-source example, use
@bilig/headless and link the runnable example, not the root repo.
Use these as starting points, not copy/paste automation.
yeah, screenshots are the weak primitive here.
the useful thing is a workbook api the agent can mutate and verify. i wrote up
the shape we use in bilig:
https://github.com/proompteng/bilig/blob/main/docs/why-agents-need-workbook-apis.md
i think the honest version is fixture-scoped parity, not "excel compatible".
for bilig i'm trying to make each claim point at the exact fixture + verifier
command, like this xlookup exact case:
https://github.com/proompteng/bilig/blob/main/docs/formula-edge-xlookup-exact-fixture.md
the useful version is one behavior per fixture.
for criteria aggregates, this is the kind of claim i trust: one sumifs case,
expected rows, registry status, and the verifier command:
https://github.com/proompteng/bilig/blob/main/docs/formula-edge-sumifs-paired-criteria-fixture.md
the interesting spreadsheet-agent cases are not just scalar formulas.
for bilig i am trying to keep grouped spill claims small and auditable: one
groupby fixture, exact expected output, and the verifier command:
https://github.com/proompteng/bilig/blob/main/docs/formula-edge-groupby-spill-fixture.md
cached xlsx parity is a useful test, but it should be described as corpus parity.
this is the report shape we use: matching formulas, mismatches, skipped formulas,
and why they were skipped:
https://github.com/proompteng/bilig/blob/main/docs/xlsx-corpus-verifier-walkthrough.md
the part that gets interesting is when the workbook document can round-trip
through json and still preserve formula-backed state.
this is the small node example i keep pointing people at:
https://github.com/proompteng/bilig/tree/main/examples/headless-workpaper
the benchmark claim has to stay narrow or it becomes noise.
for bilig the public claim is 46/46 mean wins on scorecard-eligible comparable
workloads, with the p95 caveat left attached:
https://github.com/proompteng/bilig/blob/main/docs/what-workpaper-benchmark-proves.md
Use these when a link would feel premature:
this is where i think spreadsheet engines need more boring audit trails: exact
fixture, expected value, verifier command, and explicit gaps.
the thing i would separate is "can import the file" vs "can prove the formulas
match cached results for this corpus".
for agent workflows, i think the grid is the ui, not the api. the api needs
stable workbook state and readback.
For every useful reply:
This compounds better than raw posting volume because it turns market feedback into repository evidence.
Run this as a weekly loop:
3 days watching related X discussions and add at most 2
high-context replies per day.Do not optimize for reply count. The compounding unit is a public artifact that is good enough to link when the same question appears again.