agentleFS
zrosenfieldzrosenfield/sharepoint-ai-skills/Skills/copy-editing/SKILL.md

copy-editing

Skill96 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Systematically edits Markdown documents — READMEs, skill files, and demo guides — using seven sequential sweeps. Each sweep focuses on one quality dimension so nothing gets missed. Use when a document needs to be clearer, tighter, or easier to act on. Triggers include "edit this", "clean this up", "review my README", "improve this skill", "tighten this up", or when a document feels long, vague, or hard to follow. Does NOT write or suggest code.

99 other projects use a version of this.

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

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 96 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 9

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Run these in order. Complete each sweep fully before moving to the next.

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    Goal: Every sentence should be understood on the first read.

    line 22
  3. Distinctive:

    Goal: Every section should answer "why does this matter to me?"

    line 74
  4. Distinctive:

    Every document has at least one action the reader is meant to take.

    line 171
  5. Distinctive:

    Run all seven sweeps in order.

    line 191
  6. Distinctive:

    If the user identifies a specific problem ("this feels vague", "the instructions are confusing"), start with the most relevant sweep and …

    line 194
  7. Distinctive:

    If asked to review rather than rewrite, score the document on each sweep (1–10) and list specific issues found.

    line 197
  8. Distinctive:

    Write, edit, or suggest code of any kind

    line 213
  9. Distinctive:

    Add sections or topics not already present (unless a required section like a CTA is missing entirely)

    line 215

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 96 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 Skill

Good copy editing isn't about rewriting — it's about enhancing. Each sweep focuses on one quality dimension, catching issues that get missed when you try to fix everything at once.

Scope: This skill edits prose and Markdown structure only. It does not write, suggest, or modify code of any kind.


The Seven Sweeps

Run these in order. Complete each sweep fully before moving to the next.


Sweep 1 — Clarity

Goal: Every sentence should be understood on the first read.

Look for:

  • Sentences that require re-reading to parse
  • Passive voice hiding who does what ("the file is loaded" → "load the file")
  • Buried lead — the most important point is halfway through a paragraph
  • Assumed knowledge — jargon or acronyms not defined for the intended audience
  • Double negatives and hedge stacks ("it may not be unlikely that...")

Common clarity killers in technical docs:

WeakStronger
"Leverage the functionality""Use the feature"
"It should be noted that"[delete — just say the thing]
"In order to""To"
"At this point in time""Now"
"Utilize""Use"

Checklist:

  • Each sentence makes one point
  • Subject comes before verb in most sentences
  • Acronyms defined on first use
  • No sentence needs to be read twice

Sweep 2 — Voice and Tone

Goal: The document sounds like a knowledgeable colleague, not a corporate manual or an AI summary.

This library's voice is:

  • Direct — say what you mean, skip the preamble
  • Technically confident — don't over-explain basics, but don't assume expert depth
  • Action-oriented — favor imperative constructions ("Open the file", "Paste this into...")
  • Unpretentious — no inflated language to sound more authoritative

Look for:

  • Overly formal phrases that create distance ("Please be advised...", "It is recommended that...")
  • Enthusiasm inflation ("incredibly powerful", "seamlessly integrates", "game-changing")
  • Hedging that undermines confidence ("might possibly", "could potentially")
  • Inconsistent person — don't switch between "you", "the user", and "one" in the same doc

Checklist:

  • Tone is consistent start to finish
  • No corporate or marketing filler language
  • Reads like a person wrote it, not a template was filled in
  • Consistent second-person address ("you") throughout

Sweep 3 — So What

Goal: Every section should answer "why does this matter to me?"

The most common failure in technical documentation: describing what something is without explaining why someone would use it or what problem it solves.

Look for:

  • Feature descriptions with no benefit statement
  • Steps that don't explain what the step accomplishes
  • Introductions that describe the document instead of its value ("This README covers...")
  • Skill descriptions that say what the skill contains instead of what it does for the user

Pattern to fix:

Before: "This skill includes four post type templates."
After:  "Four post type templates mean you always start with the right structure — no blank page."

Checklist:

  • The opening of every major section answers "why does this exist"
  • Each feature or capability is paired with a user benefit
  • The document's opening paragraph tells the reader what they'll be able to do, not just what the doc covers

Sweep 4 — Prove It

Goal: Claims are backed by examples, not just asserted.

Look for:

  • Assertions without illustration ("This skill produces better results")
  • Vague capability statements with no concrete example ("Works for any goal")
  • Instructions that tell but don't show ("Describe what you want and the skill handles the rest")

Fix by adding:

  • A concrete example for any claim that could be doubted
  • A "for example" or sample input/output where a step is abstract
  • Specific scenarios in skill descriptions (the frontmatter description field is the main place agents use to decide whether to invoke a skill — make it concrete)

Checklist:

  • Every "this does X" statement has an example of X
  • Skill frontmatter descriptions include at least one concrete trigger or use case
  • Abstract instructions have a "for example" companion

Sweep 5 — Specificity

Goal: Replace vague language with precise language wherever precision is possible.

Look for:

  • Quantity vagueness ("several", "a few", "many" → use actual numbers when known)
  • Scope vagueness ("various features", "different options" → name them)
  • Time vagueness ("quickly", "in a moment" → be specific or cut)
  • Outcome vagueness ("better results", "improved output" → describe the actual improvement)

Pattern:

Before: "The RALPH loop runs a few iterations until it's satisfied."
After:  "RALPH runs up to 5 iterations (configurable) and stops when all criteria score 9/10 or above."

Checklist:

  • Numbers used instead of quantity words wherever the number is known or estimable
  • Named specifics instead of category labels ("the Reason phase" not "one of the phases")
  • Outcome descriptions are measurable or observable

Sweep 6 — Scannability

Goal: A reader should be able to understand the document's structure and find what they need without reading every word.

This matters especially for:

  • READMEs (readers skim to decide if this is relevant)
  • Skill files (the agent may scan before applying)
  • Demo guides (users skip to the step they're on)

Look for:

  • Walls of prose where a list or table would serve better
  • Long lists that could be grouped under subheadings
  • Sections with no heading that run into each other
  • Tables where column headers don't match the content
  • Heading hierarchy jumps (H2 directly to H4)
  • Bolded words mid-sentence that don't add navigation value

Checklist:

  • Every major topic has a heading
  • Parallel items are in lists, not buried in paragraphs
  • Tables have clear, matching column headers
  • Document structure is visible from headings alone (no orphan sections)
  • No heading level is skipped

Sweep 7 — Action

Goal: It's always clear what the reader should do next.

Every document has at least one action the reader is meant to take. Make it unambiguous.

Look for:

  • Instructions in passive voice ("The file should be saved to...")
  • CTAs buried at the end of long paragraphs
  • "Getting Started" sections that start with prerequisites instead of the first actual step
  • Multiple competing next steps without a recommended path
  • Skill files that describe the skill but don't tell the agent how to invoke or apply it

Checklist:

  • Every set of instructions uses imperative verbs ("Open", "Paste", "Replace", "Run")
  • The first step is the first action, not a preamble
  • There is one clear "start here" path, with alternatives labeled as such
  • Skill files include explicit invocation guidance (what the user says, what the agent does)

Running the Sweeps

Full Edit

Run all seven sweeps in order. Output the revised document after all sweeps complete. Briefly note what changed and why.

Targeted Edit

If the user identifies a specific problem ("this feels vague", "the instructions are confusing"), start with the most relevant sweep and flag if other sweeps would also help.

Review Mode

If asked to review rather than rewrite, score the document on each sweep (1–10) and list specific issues found. Do not rewrite unless asked.


Output Format

After editing, provide:

  1. Revised document — full Markdown, ready to save
  2. Edit summary — brief bullets on the most significant changes made and which sweep caught them
  3. Remaining flags — anything that couldn't be fixed without more context from the author (missing examples, unknown specifics, unclear intent)

What This Skill Does Not Do

  • Write, edit, or suggest code of any kind
  • Rewrite content so substantially that the author's intent changes
  • Add sections or topics not already present (unless a required section like a CTA is missing entirely)
  • Change factual claims — flag them for author verification instead

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.