agentleFS
Sign inStart free
coleschaffercoleschaffer/copywritingskills-rmbc/skills/copy-rewrite/SKILL.md

copy-rewrite

Skill32 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Rewrite underperforming copy using RMBC framework — audits weaknesses first, then rewrites section by section with before/after comparison and rationale.

2 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 5

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md to load RMBC framework definitions.

    line 29
  2. Distinctive:

    Before/after must be shown for every rewritten section — no invisible changes

    line 128
  3. Distinctive:

    Specificity gate: Every claim in the copy must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "get results" or "improve your business"

    line 135
  4. Distinctive:

    Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)

    line 136
  5. Distinctive:

    Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode

    line 138
  6. Very specific:

    Run /rmbc-copy-audit for a deeper standalone audit (without rewrite)

    line 143
  7. Very specific:

    Run /mechanism-ideation if the audit reveals no mechanism in the original

    line 144
  8. Very specific:

    Run /hook-battery if the hook scores 1-2

    line 145
  9. Very specific:

    Use format-specific skills for full rewrites from scratch: /lander-copy, /email-promo, /vsl-script

    line 146

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

copy-rewrite

Purpose

Take existing underperforming copy and rewrite it with proper RMBC structure. This is a two-phase skill: first audit (diagnose what's broken), then rewrite (fix it section by section). Every rewrite shows before/after for each section with an explanation of what changed and why. The goal is not to rewrite from scratch — it's to preserve what works, fix what doesn't, and add what's missing. The audit phase prevents the common AI mistake of rewriting copy that was already strong.

Inputs

InputRequiredDescription
original_copyYesThe full copy to be rewritten — paste it in or provide the file path
copy_typeYesOne of: landing_page, email, ad, vsl_script, advertorial, product_page, other
target_audienceYesWho the prospect is — demographics, pain points, desires, sophistication level
key_mechanismNoThe product's unique mechanism (output from /mechanism-ideation)
performance_dataNoAny metrics: conversion rate, CTR, bounce rate, avg time on page, or qualitative feedback
toneNoOne of: aggressive, conversational, professional (default: preserve original tone)

Execution Protocol

Step 1 — Load Framework Context

Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md to load RMBC framework definitions. Copy rewrites require understanding all four RMBC phases to diagnose which phase is failing in the original.

Step 2 — Audit the Original Copy

Score the original across 6 dimensions (1-5 each):

DimensionWhat to Evaluate
Hook strengthDoes the opening stop the scroll? Is it specific or generic?
Problem agitationDoes it make the pain vivid and urgent? Or does it rush to the solution?
Mechanism clarityIs there a named mechanism? Is it explained simply? Or is it features-only?
Proof qualityAre there specific claims, testimonials, data? Or vague assertions?
Offer structureIs the value clear? Is there price anchoring? Risk reversal?
CTA clarityIs there one clear action? Is urgency real or manufactured?

Produce a scorecard and identify the 2-3 weakest dimensions.

Step 3 — Map the Rewrite Plan

Based on audit scores, determine:

  • Keep — Sections scoring 4-5 (preserve with minor polish)
  • Rewrite — Sections scoring 2-3 (significant structural changes)
  • Add — Missing RMBC elements that don't exist in the original
  • Cut — Content that's diluting the argument (tangents, redundancy, weak proof)

Step 4 — Execute Section-by-Section Rewrite

For each section that needs work:

  1. Quote the original — Exact text from the input
  2. Diagnose — One line: what's wrong and why it underperforms
  3. Rewrite — The improved version
  4. Explain — What changed and what RMBC principle it applies

Preserve the original's voice and tone unless the user specified a different tone.

Step 5 — Assemble the Full Rewrite

Combine all sections (kept, rewritten, and added) into a cohesive final version. Ensure transitions between sections are smooth — a rewrite of individual sections can create jarring seams.

Output Format

## Copy Rewrite: [Copy Type] for [Product/Brand]

---

### Audit Scorecard

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Verdict |
|-----------|-------------|---------|
| Hook strength | X | [1 line] |
| Problem agitation | X | [1 line] |
| Mechanism clarity | X | [1 line] |
| Proof quality | X | [1 line] |
| Offer structure | X | [1 line] |
| CTA clarity | X | [1 line] |

**Overall:** X/30
**Weakest areas:** [2-3 dimensions to focus on]

---

### Section-by-Section Rewrite

#### [Section Name]

**BEFORE:**
> [original text]

**DIAGNOSIS:** [what's wrong — 1 line]

**AFTER:**
[rewritten text]

**WHY:** [what RMBC principle this applies — 1 line]

[...repeat for each section...]

---

### Full Rewrite (Assembled)

[Complete rewritten copy, all sections combined with smooth transitions]

---

### Rewrite Summary

- **Sections kept:** [list]
- **Sections rewritten:** [list]
- **Sections added:** [list]
- **Sections cut:** [list]
- **Estimated impact:** [what should improve and why]

Quality Criteria

  • Audit must score honestly — do not inflate weaknesses to justify more rewrites
  • Before/after must be shown for every rewritten section — no invisible changes
  • Rewrites must preserve the original voice unless a different tone was requested
  • Added sections must fill genuine RMBC gaps, not pad word count
  • The assembled full rewrite must read as cohesive copy, not a patchwork
  • "Why" explanations must reference specific RMBC principles, not generic "this is better"
  • Sections scoring 4-5 in audit should be kept with minimal changes — resist rewriting what works
  • Specificity gate: Every claim in the copy must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "get results" or "improve your business"
  • Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
  • Audience journey: The copy must reference where the reader IS (what they've tried, what's failing) — not just who they are demographically
  • Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode
  • Objection handling: The copy must address at least 2 likely objections with concrete responses (ROI math, proof of similar result, risk reversal)

Related Skills

  • Run /rmbc-copy-audit for a deeper standalone audit (without rewrite)
  • Run /mechanism-ideation if the audit reveals no mechanism in the original
  • Run /hook-battery if the hook scores 1-2
  • Use format-specific skills for full rewrites from scratch: /lander-copy, /email-promo, /vsl-script

Attribution

Generated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free