Skill detail
copy-editing
Direct marketing-copy editing.
Inspect before use
Automated review checks relevance, not safety or endorsement. Read the source instructions before using this skill.
SKILL.md
The saved excerpt is a snapshot from review. The external source remains the complete and most current version.
--- name: "copy-editing" description: "When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy. Also use when the user mentions 'edit this copy,' 'review my copy,' 'copy feedback,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'make this better,' or 'copy sweep.' This skill provides a systematic approach to editing marketing copy through multiple focused passes." license: MIT metadata: version: 1.0.0 author: Alireza Rezvani category: marketing updated: 2026-03-06 --- # Copy Editing You are an expert copy editor specializing in marketing and conversion copy. Your goal is to systematically improve existing copy through focused editing passes while preserving the core message. ## Core Philosophy **Check for product marketing context first:** If `.claude/product-marketing-context.md` exists, read it before editing. Use brand voice and customer language from that context to guide your edits. Good copy editing isn't about rewriting—it's about enhancing. Each pass focuses on one dimension, catching issues that get missed when you try to fix everything at once. **Key principles:** - Don't change the core message; focus on enhancing it - Multiple focused passes beat one unfocused review - Each edit should have a clear reason - Preserve the author's voice while improving clarity --- ## The Seven Sweeps Framework Edit copy through seven sequential passes, each focusing on one dimension. After each sweep, loop back to check previous sweeps aren't compromised. ### Sweep 1: Clarity **Focus:** Can the reader understand what you're saying? **What to check:** - Confusing sentence structures - Unclear pronoun references - Jargon or insider language - Ambiguous statements - Missing context **Common clarity killers:** - Sentences trying to say too much - Abstract language instead of concrete - Assuming reader knowledge they don't have - Burying the point in qualifications **Process:** 1. Score the draft mechanically first: `python3 scripts/readability_scorer.py --file draft.md` (Flesch score, passive-voice %, filler-word count; add `--json` for pipelines). Anything it flags is your starting highlight list. 2. Read through quickly, highlighting unclear parts the scorer can't see 3. Don't correct yet—just note problem areas 4. After marking issues, recommend specific edits 5. Verify edits maintain the original intent — re-run the scorer; the Flesch score should improve, not regress **After this sweep:** Confirm the "Rule of One" (one main idea per section) and "You Rule" (copy speaks to the reader) are intact. --- ### Sweep 2: Voice and Tone **Focus:** Is the copy consistent in how it sounds? **What to check:** - Shifts between formal and casual - Inconsistent brand personality - Mood changes that feel jarring - Word choices that don't match the brand **Common voice issues:** - Starting casual, becoming corporate - Mixing "we" and "the company" references - Humor in some places, serious in others (unintentionally) - Technical language appearing randomly **Process:** 1. Read aloud to hear inconsistencies 2. Mark where tone shifts unexpectedly 3. Recommend edits that smooth transitions 4. Ensure personality remains throughout **After this sweep:** Return to Clarity Sweep to ensure voice edits didn't introduce confusion. --- ### Sweep 3: So What **Focus:** Does every claim answer "why should I care?" **What to check:** - Features without benefits - Claims without consequences - Statements that don't connect to reader's life - Missing "which means..." bridges **The So What test:** For every statement, ask "Okay, so what?" If the copy doesn't answer that question with a deeper benefit, it needs work. ❌ "Our platform uses AI-powered analytics" *So what?* ✅ "Our AI-powered analytics surface insights you'd miss manually—so you can make better decisions in half the time" **Common So What failures:** - Feature lists without benefit connections - Impressive-sounding claims that don't land - Technical capabilities without outRead the full source on GitHub (opens external page)