agentleFS
florattuflorattu/claude-skills/copy-editing/SKILL.md

copy-editing

Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

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.

99 other projects use a version of this, 87 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use popups, free-tools and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • CesarjoquinSkill

    popups

    When the user wants to create or optimize popups, modals, overlays, slide-ins, or banners for conversion purposes. Also use when the user mentions "exit intent," "popup conversions," "modal optimization," "lead capture popup," "email popup," "announcement banner," "overlay," "collect emails with a popup," "exit popup," "scroll trigger," "sticky bar," or "notification bar." Use this for any overlay or interrupt-style conversion element. For forms outside of popups, see cro. For general page conversion optimization, see cro.

    Also in 23 projects that use this

  • CesarjoquinSkill

    free-tools

    When the user wants to plan, evaluate, or build a free tool for marketing purposes — lead generation, SEO value, or brand awareness. Also use when the user mentions "engineering as marketing," "free tool," "marketing tool," "calculator," "generator," "interactive tool," "lead gen tool," "build a tool for leads," "free resource," "ROI calculator," "grader tool," "audit tool," "should I build a free tool," or "tools for lead gen." Use this whenever someone wants to build something useful and give it away to attract leads or earn links. For downloadable content lead magnets (ebooks, checklists, templates), see lead-magnets.

    Also in 24 projects that use this

  • coreyhaines31Skill

    marketing-council

    When the user wants multiple expert perspectives on a marketing question — a simulated board of advisors staffed by legendary marketers (Seth Godin, David Ogilvy, Eugene Schwartz, April Dunford, Rory Sutherland, Alex Hormozi, Byron Sharp, and more). Also use when the user mentions 'marketing council,' 'board of advisors,' 'advisory board,' 'what would Seth Godin say,' 'what would Ogilvy think,' 'channel Hormozi,' 'get multiple perspectives,' 'debate this,' 'have the council review,' 'marketing mentors,' or asks how a famous marketer would approach their problem. The council gives each advisor's take through their documented frameworks, surfaces where they disagree, and synthesizes a recommendation. For executing the winning direction, hand off to positioning, offers, copywriting, ads, or the relevant skill.

    Also in 18 projects that use this

  • ukunal91appSkill

    community-marketing

    Build and leverage online communities to drive product growth and brand loyalty. Use when the user wants to create a community strategy, grow a Discord or Slack community, manage a forum or subreddit, build brand advocates, increase word-of-mouth, drive community-led growth, engage users post-signup, or turn customers into evangelists. Trigger phrases: "build a community," "community strategy," "Discord community," "Slack community," "community-led growth," "brand advocates," "user community," "forum strategy," "community engagement," "grow our community," "ambassador program," "community flywheel.

    Also in 34 projects that use this

  • Hussain-ElfalahSkill

    andreessen

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • Hussain-ElfalahSkill

    business-investment-advisor

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • +4 more from Cesarjoquin
  • +1 more from Hussain-Elfalah

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

28 rules. 27 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 27

    Common

    Most of the 92 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

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

    If .claude/product-marketing-context.md exists, read it before editing.

    line 15
  2. Common:

    Don't change the core message.

    line 20
  3. Common:

    Read through quickly, highlighting unclear parts

    line 49
  4. Common:

    Don't correct yet—just note problem areas

    line 50
  5. Common:

    After marking issues, recommend specific edits

    line 51
  6. Common:

    Verify edits maintain the original intent

    line 52
  7. Common:

    Read aloud to hear inconsistencies

    line 75
  8. Common:

    Ensure personality remains throughout

    line 78
  9. Common:

    Read each claim and literally ask "so what?"

    line 108
  10. Common:

    Add the benefit bridge or deeper meaning

    line 110
  11. Common:

    Ensure benefits connect to real reader desires

    line 111
  12. Common:

    Check if proof exists nearby

    line 144
  13. Common:

    Ask "Can this be more specific?"

    line 180
  14. Common:

    Add numbers, timeframes, or examples

    line 181
  15. Common:

    Remove content that can't be made specific (it's probably filler)

    line 182
  16. Common:

    Ask questions that prompt reflection

    line 211
  17. Common:

    Read for emotional impact—does it move you?

    line 214
  18. Common:

    Add emotional texture while staying authentic

    line 216
  19. Common:

    Ensure emotion serves the message (not manipulation)

    line 217
  20. Common:

    Check if the copy addresses each concern

    line 252
  21. Common:

    Add risk reversals or trust signals as needed

    line 253
  22. Common:

    Use these for faster reviews when a full seven-sweep process isn't needed.

    line 261
  23. Common:

    No more than 25 words (usually)

    line 296
  24. Common:

    Fix: Add "which means..." after each feature to bridge to benefits

    line 370
  25. Common:

    Fix: Ask "How would a human say this?" and use those words

    line 374
  26. Common:

    Fix: Add specific testimonials, numbers, or case references

    line 386
  27. Common:

    Recommend specific edits: - Don't just identify problems.

    line 407
  28. Common:

    Verify previous sweeps: - After each round of edits, re-check earlier sweeps

    line 409

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 92 edited versions of this file we could read. “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 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. Read through quickly, highlighting unclear parts
  2. Don't correct yet—just note problem areas
  3. After marking issues, recommend specific edits
  4. Verify edits maintain the original intent

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 outcomes
  • Company achievements that don't help the reader

Process:

  1. Read each claim and literally ask "so what?"
  2. Highlight claims missing the answer
  3. Add the benefit bridge or deeper meaning
  4. Ensure benefits connect to real reader desires

After this sweep: Return to Voice and Tone, then Clarity.


Sweep 4: Prove It

Focus: Is every claim supported with evidence?

What to check:

  • Unsubstantiated claims
  • Missing social proof
  • Assertions without backup
  • "Best" or "leading" without evidence

Types of proof to look for:

  • Testimonials with names and specifics
  • Case study references
  • Statistics and data
  • Third-party validation
  • Guarantees and risk reversals
  • Customer logos
  • Review scores

Common proof gaps:

  • "Trusted by thousands" (which thousands?)
  • "Industry-leading" (according to whom?)
  • "Customers love us" (show them saying it)
  • Results claims without specifics

Process:

  1. Identify every claim that needs proof
  2. Check if proof exists nearby
  3. Flag unsupported assertions
  4. Recommend adding proof or softening claims

After this sweep: Return to So What, Voice and Tone, then Clarity.


Sweep 5: Specificity

Focus: Is the copy concrete enough to be compelling?

What to check:

  • Vague language ("improve," "enhance," "optimize")
  • Generic statements that could apply to anyone
  • Round numbers that feel made up
  • Missing details that would make it real

Specificity upgrades:

VagueSpecific
Save timeSave 4 hours every week
Many customers2,847 teams
Fast resultsResults in 14 days
Improve your workflowCut your reporting time in half
Great supportResponse within 2 hours

Common specificity issues:

  • Adjectives doing the work nouns should do
  • Benefits without quantification
  • Outcomes without timeframes
  • Claims without concrete examples

Process:

  1. Highlight vague words and phrases
  2. Ask "Can this be more specific?"
  3. Add numbers, timeframes, or examples
  4. Remove content that can't be made specific (it's probably filler)

After this sweep: Return to Prove It, So What, Voice and Tone, then Clarity.


Sweep 6: Heightened Emotion

Focus: Does the copy make the reader feel something?

What to check:

  • Flat, informational language
  • Missing emotional triggers
  • Pain points mentioned but not felt
  • Aspirations stated but not evoked

Emotional dimensions to consider:

  • Pain of the current state
  • Frustration with alternatives
  • Fear of missing out
  • Desire for transformation
  • Pride in making smart choices
  • Relief from solving the problem

Techniques for heightening emotion:

  • Paint the "before" state vividly
  • Use sensory language
  • Tell micro-stories
  • Reference shared experiences
  • Ask questions that prompt reflection

Process:

  1. Read for emotional impact—does it move you?
  2. Identify flat sections that should resonate
  3. Add emotional texture while staying authentic
  4. Ensure emotion serves the message (not manipulation)

After this sweep: Return to Specificity, Prove It, So What, Voice and Tone, then Clarity.


Sweep 7: Zero Risk

Focus: Have we removed every barrier to action?

What to check:

  • Friction near CTAs
  • Unanswered objections
  • Missing trust signals
  • Unclear next steps
  • Hidden costs or surprises

Risk reducers to look for:

  • Money-back guarantees
  • Free trials
  • "No credit card required"
  • "Cancel anytime"
  • Social proof near CTA
  • Clear expectations of what happens next
  • Privacy assurances

Common risk issues:

  • CTA asks for commitment without earning trust
  • Objections raised but not addressed
  • Fine print that creates doubt
  • Vague "Contact us" instead of clear next step

Process:

  1. Focus on sections near CTAs
  2. List every reason someone might hesitate
  3. Check if the copy addresses each concern
  4. Add risk reversals or trust signals as needed

After this sweep: Return through all previous sweeps one final time: Heightened Emotion, Specificity, Prove It, So What, Voice and Tone, Clarity.


Quick-Pass Editing Checks

Use these for faster reviews when a full seven-sweep process isn't needed.

Word-Level Checks

Cut these words:

  • Very, really, extremely, incredibly (weak intensifiers)
  • Just, actually, basically (filler)
  • In order to (use "to")
  • That (often unnecessary)
  • Things, stuff (vague)

Replace these:

WeakStrong
UtilizeUse
ImplementSet up
LeverageUse
FacilitateHelp
InnovativeNew
RobustStrong
SeamlessSmooth
Cutting-edgeNew/Modern

Watch for:

  • Adverbs (usually unnecessary)
  • Passive voice (switch to active)
  • Nominalizations (verb → noun: "make a decision" → "decide")

Sentence-Level Checks

  • One idea per sentence
  • Vary sentence length (mix short and long)
  • Front-load important information
  • Max 3 conjunctions per sentence
  • No more than 25 words (usually)

Paragraph-Level Checks

  • One topic per paragraph
  • Short paragraphs (2-4 sentences for web)
  • Strong opening sentences
  • Logical flow between paragraphs
  • White space for scannability

Copy Editing Checklist

Before You Start

  • Understand the goal of this copy
  • Know the target audience
  • Identify the desired action
  • Read through once without editing

Clarity (Sweep 1)

  • Every sentence is immediately understandable
  • No jargon without explanation
  • Pronouns have clear references
  • No sentences trying to do too much

Voice & Tone (Sweep 2)

  • Consistent formality level throughout
  • Brand personality maintained
  • No jarring shifts in mood
  • Reads well aloud

So What (Sweep 3)

  • Every feature connects to a benefit
  • Claims answer "why should I care?"
  • Benefits connect to real desires
  • No impressive-but-empty statements

Prove It (Sweep 4)

  • Claims are substantiated
  • Social proof is specific and attributed
  • Numbers and stats have sources
  • No unearned superlatives

Specificity (Sweep 5)

  • Vague words replaced with concrete ones
  • Numbers and timeframes included
  • Generic statements made specific
  • Filler content removed

Heightened Emotion (Sweep 6)

  • Copy evokes feeling, not just information
  • Pain points feel real
  • Aspirations feel achievable
  • Emotion serves the message authentically

Zero Risk (Sweep 7)

  • Objections addressed near CTA
  • Trust signals present
  • Next steps are crystal clear
  • Risk reversals stated (guarantee, trial, etc.)

Final Checks

  • No typos or grammatical errors
  • Consistent formatting
  • Links work (if applicable)
  • Core message preserved through all edits

Common Copy Problems & Fixes

Problem: Wall of Features

Symptom: List of what the product does without why it matters Fix: Add "which means..." after each feature to bridge to benefits

Problem: Corporate Speak

Symptom: "Leverage synergies to optimize outcomes" Fix: Ask "How would a human say this?" and use those words

Problem: Weak Opening

Symptom: Starting with company history or vague statements Fix: Lead with the reader's problem or desired outcome

Problem: Buried CTA

Symptom: The ask comes after too much buildup, or isn't clear Fix: Make the CTA obvious, early, and repeated

Problem: No Proof

Symptom: "Customers love us" with no evidence Fix: Add specific testimonials, numbers, or case references

Problem: Generic Claims

Symptom: "We help businesses grow" Fix: Specify who, how, and by how much

Problem: Mixed Audiences

Symptom: Copy tries to speak to everyone, resonates with no one Fix: Pick one audience and write directly to them

Problem: Feature Overload

Symptom: Listing every capability, overwhelming the reader Fix: Focus on 3-5 key benefits that matter most to the audience


Working with Copy Sweeps

When editing collaboratively:

  1. Run a sweep and present findings - Show what you found, why it's an issue
  2. Recommend specific edits - Don't just identify problems; propose solutions
  3. Request the updated copy - Let the author make final decisions
  4. Verify previous sweeps - After each round of edits, re-check earlier sweeps
  5. Repeat until clean - Continue until a full sweep finds no new issues

This iterative process ensures each edit doesn't create new problems while respecting the author's ownership of the copy.


References

  • Plain English Alternatives: Replace complex words with simpler alternatives

Task-Specific Questions

  1. What's the goal of this copy? (Awareness, conversion, retention)
  2. What action should readers take?
  3. Are there specific concerns or known issues?
  4. What proof/evidence do you have available?

Related Skills

  • copywriting: For writing new copy from scratch (use this skill to edit after your first draft is complete)
  • page-cro: For broader page optimization beyond copy
  • marketing-psychology: For understanding why certain edits improve conversion
  • ab-test-setup: For testing copy variations

When to Use Each Skill

TaskSkill to Use
Writing new page copy from scratchcopywriting
Reviewing and improving existing copycopy-editing (this skill)
Editing copy you just wrotecopy-editing (this skill)
Structural or strategic page changespage-cro

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.