linkedin2username
0.28 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on linkedin2username's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
linkedin2username is an OSINTOSINTOpen-source intelligence, collecting and analyzing information from publicly available sources. Investigators use it to learn about people, infrastructure or threats. tool that scrapes LinkedIn company pages to generate lists of probable employee username formats without requiring an API key.
Summary
linkedin2username is an open-source command-line tool that logs into LinkedIn with a valid user's credentials and scrapes a target company's employee list to generate probable username formats, and it costs nothing to use. It requires no API key, running instead as a local script against a real LinkedIn session via a browser Selenium can control, which makes it a fit for red teamers and social engineers building credential-stuffing or phishing target lists during recon. It sits in the OSINT reconnaissance space, alongside other username-enumeration and people-search tooling, producing plain text and CSV output ready to feed into other attack tooling. First committed in 2018 and still maintained by 14 contributors, it saw 5 commits in the past year and a release 93 days ago, so it remains active if not fast-moving.
linkedin2username is an OSINT tool that scrapes LinkedIn company pages to generate lists of probable employee username formats without requiring an API key.
How linkedin2username helps
What are the likely login usernames for employees at this target company?
logs into LinkedIn with real credentials and pulls every employee listed on the company's page, then generates first.last, f.last, flast, firstl, first, and lastf variants for each name into separate lists ready for spraying or stuffing
Who works at this company and what do they do?
writes a metadata file pairing each scraped employee's full name with their listed occupation, giving a role-sorted view of the target's staff
How do I turn a scraped name list into ready-to-use email addresses for a phishing run?
appends a supplied domain to every generated username variant so the output lines are already formatted as full email addresses
Am I at risk of LinkedIn flagging or rate-limiting the account I used for this recon?
the README notes rate limiting appears tied to hitting LinkedIn's commercial search limit and has so far only been temporary, measured on a monthly basis, rather than resulting in outright bans
Languages
Command line
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for linkedin2username, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail linkedin2username puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Releases
2 entries
No entries match these filters.
- September 20231
- January 20231
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in initstring/linkedin2username, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 1 +1 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 1 +1 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 1 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 100% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 57 days first maintainer reply 57 days
- Open backlog 0 of 40 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 0
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 1,856
- other 100%
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Libraries its release ships
What its latest release locks, checked against known advisories.None of its release's images build from a lockfile we can read.
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.