product-copy
Skill5 starsChanged 37 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when writing or rewriting a product description, product title, benefit list, feature bullets, or on-page product messaging for an online store — e.g. "write a description for this product", "rewrite my product copy", "how many benefits should I list", "should I say 500g or 25 servings", "name this color", "should we mention it's lab-tested".
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- koach08/claude-code-skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 12, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- koach08/claude-code-skills★ 4same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository18 other files it gives its agents.
- checkout-uxSkill
- digital-product-pricingSkill
- discountsSkill
- event-pricingSkill
- increase-aovSkill
- increase-conversionSkill
- increase-repeat-purchasesSkill
- post-purchaseSkill
- price-researchSkill
- pricingSkill
- product-pageSkill
- product-visualsSkill
- promotionsSkill
- raise-pricesSkill
- referralsSkill
- reviewsSkill
- store-auditSkill
- subscription-pricingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Write product descriptions that people find persuasive, easy to grasp, and worth paying more for.
- Distinctive: line 34
Best features only: Don't pad with merely good features — the impression sinks to the weakest claim.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Product copy
Write product descriptions that people find persuasive, easy to grasp, and worth paying more for. The rules change how copy is structured and measured — number of claims, units, names, register — which move purchase intent and willingness to pay more than adjectives do.
When to use
- Writing or rewriting a description, title, bullets, or hero message
- Choosing which features to mention, how many, in what units and register
When not to use
- Auditing the whole page →
product-page; photo/video direction →product-visuals - Discount or promotion wording →
discounts/promotions
Inputs
Collect, or state your assumption:
- Product facts: materials, quantity, specs, ingredients or components (any branded?)
- The full list of candidate benefits
- Audience and how technical they are
- Where the copy sits and the length limit
Classify the product first. Hedonic = bought for enjoyment, pleasure, or the experience (chocolate, fashion, decor, travel, spa, perfume). Utilitarian = bought to do a job, judged on function and value (detergent, appliances, insect repellent, tools, accounting software). If it's mixed, decide by what the buyer is optimizing for at the moment of purchase.
Procedure
- Pick three claims. Rank the benefits; keep the top three (three claims were 10.4% more persuasive than four; skepticism starts at the fourth). Move the rest to a spec table.
- Best features only. Don't pad with merely good features — the impression sinks to the weakest claim.
- Units people use. Uses or pieces (30 washes, 8 cans), not standardized measures (750 g, 96 oz). Raises product evaluations and willingness to pay.
- Smaller units for precision. Drop to the next unit down: 180 seconds, not 3 minutes; 180 minutes, not 3 hours; 32 oz, not a quarter gallon. Reads more precise and credible; strongest for time.
- Evocative color names. "Midday sky blue", not "light blue".
- Feature branded components. A branded ingredient or part (Gore-Tex, a licensed enzyme blend) goes up front; demand up to 40% higher. †
- Register by product type. Utilitarian → science and effectiveness language works. Hedonic → avoid it ("lab-formulated" on a treat: up to 30% less likely to be chosen). †
- Plain language. Unknown terms make the product seem worse and pricier; define or drop. †
- Describe touch where feel matters (textiles, skincare) — the top online clothing pain point.
- Rational up, emotional down in vertical layouts.
- Frame as an experience (coffee with friends, not bean origin) when you want reviews. †
Output
- Headline and body within the length limit.
- Rules table:
| Rule | Where |
| Three claims | stain removal, cold water, gentle on skin |
| Intuitive units | "30 washes" for "750 g" |
| Branded ingredient | licensed enzyme blend, first sentence |
- What was cut and where it can go.
Common mistakes
- Working every supplied benefit in — six benefits read as a pitch; pick three.
- Leading with pack weight or volume — lead with uses.
- Keeping the supplier's color name.
- "Lab-tested" on a hedonic product.
Quick reference
| Element | Rule |
| Claims | Exactly three, best only |
| Quantity | Uses/pieces, not grams/ounces |
| Precision | Smaller unit |
| Colors | Evocative names |
| Components | Name the brand |
| Register | Science only if utilitarian |
| Vocabulary | Plain |
| Texture | Describe if feel matters |
| Layout | Rational up, emotional down |
† No primary citation on file for this rule — a practitioner tip, not a measured finding.
Evidence and effect sizes: see reference.md.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

