Use when optimizing X/Twitter posts for reach, debugging underperforming content, or understanding For You feed mechanics. Triggers on X algorithm, Twitter optimization, viral posts, engagement strategy, Phoenix ranking, weighted scorer, Grok ranking.
Sign in to like and favorite skills
Optimize content for X's 2026 neural recommendation system. Based on technical analysis of the
xai-org/x-algorithmX has abandoned the legacy heuristic approach (counting followers, matching hashtags, PageRank reputation). The new system uses end-to-end neural architecture:
The implication: You can't "hack" hashtags or posting times anymore. The algorithm reads your content semantically and predicts specific engagement probabilities. Alignment beats manipulation.
Analyze a post: "Score this X post against the algorithm: [paste]"
Generate optimized content: "Write an algorithm-optimized X post about [topic]"
Deep dive: "Explain why this post would/wouldn't perform using Phoenix mechanics"
Debug underperformance: "Why isn't this post getting reach? Analyze against weighted scorer"
DO:
DON'T:
TARGET: <0.5% block rate. Above 1% = systematic demotion.
Every post receives a score computed as:
Score = Σ (w_i × P(action_i))
Where the Phoenix transformer predicts probabilities for each action type, and configured weights determine their impact.
| Tier | Actions | Est. Weight | Strategic Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Multipliers | P(reply), P(repost), P(quote) | w > 10.0 | High friction, network-extending actions. Algorithm prioritizes conversation. |
| 2. Validators | P(like), P(video_view), P(photo_expand) | w ≈ 1.0 | Lower friction, validates relevance. Necessary but insufficient alone. |
| 3. Signals | P(click), P(dwell), P(profile_click) | w < 1.0 | Passive signals for model training. Low weight prevents clickbait farming. |
| 4. Destroyers | P(block), P(mute), P(report) | w ≈ -1000 | Catastrophic negative weight. One block negates hundreds of likes. |
Engaging post:
P(reply)=0.15, P(like)=0.08, P(repost)=0.02, P(block)=0.001 Score = (15×0.15) + (1×0.08) + (12×0.02) + (-1000×0.001) Score = 2.25 + 0.08 + 0.24 - 1.0 = 1.57 ✓
Rage-bait post:
P(reply)=0.25, P(like)=0.05, P(repost)=0.03, P(block)=0.02 Score = (15×0.25) + (1×0.05) + (12×0.03) + (-1000×0.02) Score = 3.75 + 0.05 + 0.36 - 20.0 = -15.84 ✗ (demoted)
Key insight: The rage-bait generated MORE engagement but scored WORSE because of the 2% block rate.
These are the specific, hard-coded mechanisms that determine content fate—derived directly from the codebase.
| # | Mechanic | Key Insight | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Candidate Isolation | Posts scored independently, not on a curve | Focus on intrinsic quality |
| 2 | Author Diversity Penalty | 0.3-0.7x penalty per consecutive post | Space posts 4-6+ hours apart |
| 3 | Negative Signal Asymmetry | Blocks weighted ~1000x vs likes | Target <0.5% block rate |
| 4 | Multimodal Bonus | Media adds P(video_view), P(photo_expand) | Always include media |
| 5 | Grok Semantic Reading | LLM detects topic mismatch, spam patterns | Hashtags must match content |
| 6 | Two-Tower Retrieval | dot(User, Item) vectors for discovery | Build concentrated niche first |
| 7 | Time Decay | Exponential decay after 24-48h | Post when audience is active |
The Phoenix transformer uses a custom attention mask that prevents "context bleeding" between posts in the same scoring batch. Each post is scored independently against only the user context.
What this means: Your content is judged solely on its relationship with the viewer—not graded on a curve against whatever else is in that millisecond's batch. Quality is intrinsic.
The
AuthorDiversityScorerOptimal strategy:
Negative weights are ~1000x positive weights. The system operates on harm reduction over engagement maximization.
The propagation effect: A block doesn't just lower one post's score—it:
Safe zone: Target <0.5% block rate. Above 1% = systematic demotion.
Phoenix predicts media-specific probabilities: P(video_view), P(photo_expand). These are distinct scoring terms.
Text-only posts forfeit these entirely:
Text: Score = w_reply×P(reply) + w_like×P(like) Media: Score = w_reply×P(reply) + w_like×P(like) + w_video×P(video_view)
The media bonus is structural, not optional.
The Heavy Ranker is adapted from Grok-1. It doesn't just count features—it reads the content.
What Grok detects:
The death of hacks: Irrelevant trending hashtags now hurt you. Grok sees the semantic mismatch and flags it as spam-like behavior.
Out-of-network discovery uses a Two-Tower Neural Network:
Cold start strategy: New accounts have weak User Tower embeddings. Solutions:
The
AgeFilterOptimal timing: Post when your audience is active to maximize early engagement velocity. Early signals compound through the decay function.
digraph content_flow { rankdir=TB; node [shape=box]; goal [label="What's your goal?" shape=diamond]; reach [label="Max Reach\nOptimize P(repost)+P(quote)"]; engage [label="Engagement Depth\nOptimize P(reply)"]; grow [label="Follower Growth\nOptimize P(profile_click)"]; safe [label="Safe Growth\nMinimize P(block)"]; reply_opt [label="Apply reply patterns\n(questions, fill-blanks, controversy)"]; media [label="Add media\n(+P(video_view), +P(photo_expand))"]; scan [label="Negative signal scan\n(<0.5% block rate?)" shape=diamond]; post [label="Post" shape=doublecircle]; revise [label="Revise content"]; goal -> reach [label="virality"]; goal -> engage [label="replies"]; goal -> grow [label="followers"]; goal -> safe [label="safety"]; reach -> reply_opt; engage -> reply_opt; grow -> reply_opt; safe -> reply_opt; reply_opt -> media; media -> scan; scan -> post [label="yes"]; scan -> revise [label="no"]; revise -> scan; }
| Goal | Primary Metric | Format Bias |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum reach | P(repost) + P(quote) | Shareable insights, data, frameworks |
| Engagement depth | P(reply) | Questions, debates, incomplete statements |
| Follower growth | P(profile_click) | Thread hooks, expertise signals |
| Safe growth | Low P(block) | Nuanced takes, inclusive framing |
P(reply) carries ~10-15x weight. Structure content to maximize it:
High P(reply) patterns:
Low P(reply) patterns:
Media adds probability terms you otherwise forfeit.
Image optimization:
Video optimization:
Before posting, check:
The rule: If your post might generate 5+ blocks per 1000 impressions, reconsider.
Threads are scored per tweet. The algorithm evaluates Tweet 1 independently.
Tweet 1 (The Hook):
Tweet 2-N (The Delivery):
Final Tweet (The CTA):
Anti-pattern: "Thread! 🧵" as Tweet 1 with thin content = spam signal to Grok.
| Element | Optimal | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Characters | 71-100 (max 280) | No "Show more" friction |
| Hashtags | 0-1, semantically matched | Grok detects mismatch as spam |
| Images | 1200×675px or vertical | Full preview; vertical forces expand |
| Video | <2:20, hook in 3s, captioned | Autoplay + 80% watch muted |
| Media source | Native upload only | Links don't trigger media probabilities |
When content underperforms, diagnose against the weighted scorer:
Likely cause: High P(block) rate negating positive signals Check: Is content polarizing? Does it generate negative reactions alongside positive?
Likely cause: Weak P(reply) and P(repost) optimization Check: Does content invite response? Is it shareable?
Likely cause: Weak User Tower embedding, cold start problem Solution: Build concentrated topic presence, ride trends, engage authentically
Likely cause: Author health score degradation from accumulated negative signals Solution: Audit recent content for block-generating patterns, rebuild with safer content
Grok detects artificial coordination patterns. Clustered engagement from the same accounts with unusual timing = spam signal.
Multiple irrelevant hashtags = semantic mismatch detection = spam adjacent score.
Zero media probability terms + low text engagement = structural disadvantage.
High engagement + high blocks = net negative score. The math doesn't lie.
Author diversity penalty compounds. Post #3 in an hour may reach 10% of Post #1's audience.
| File | Contents |
|---|---|
| Two-Tower model, Grok adaptation, embedding dynamics |
| Complete weight hierarchy, probability math, examples |
| 12+ proven formats with algorithm alignment notes |
Run the analyzer directly:
python scripts/analyze_x_post.py
Or import in Python:
from scripts.analyze_x_post import analyze_post, format_report, calculate_weighted_score # Analyze a post result = analyze_post("Your post text", include_media=True, media_type="image") print(format_report(result)) # Calculate raw weighted score score = calculate_weighted_score(p_reply=0.15, p_like=0.08, p_block=0.001)
Old paradigm: Game the algorithm with hacks (hashtags, timing, pods) New paradigm: Align with the neural network's objective function
The algorithm optimizes for:
Your strategy: Create content that genuinely maximizes these. The era of manipulation is over; the era of alignment has begun.