
Copy Editing
Skill编辑和翻新已经写好的营销文案:按清晰、语气、价值、证据、具体、情绪、打消顾虑七轮逐项修改,保留原意和作者语气,也能盘点并更新过时的页面内容。与 copywriting 技能互补,出自 marketingskills 合集,示例以英文为主。
name: copy-editing
description: "When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content. Also use when the user mentions 'edit this copy,' 'review my copy,' 'copy feedback,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'make this better,' 'copy sweep,' 'tighten this up,' 'this reads awkwardly,' 'clean up this text,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging,' 'refresh this content,' 'update this page,' 'this content is outdated,' or 'content audit,' 'this sounds like AI,' 'AI slop,' 'de-slop this,' or 'make it sound human.' Use this when the user already has copy and wants it improved or refreshed rather than rewritten from scratch. Every edit removes AI tells such as 'it's not X, it's Y' reveals, 'no X, no Y, no Z' lists, and sentences that trail into extra comma clauses. A request to fix one line gets a point edit that changes only that line. For writing new copy, see copywriting."
metadata:
version: 2.2.0
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 .agents/product-marketing.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing.md, or the legacy product-marketing-context.md filename, in older setups), read it before editing. Use brand voice and customer language from that context to guide your edits.
Good copy editing improves what's already there. 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
Pick the mode before editing. Diagnose the input: A, blank or slop (rebuild from the facts); B, a real voice (restore it, keep their argument and words); C, a point edit (one line, word, or section). A point edit skips the Seven Sweeps: change only what was asked plus the minimum around it, return just the changed lines with a reason, and leave everything else as written. Run the full sweeps for A and B. See references/checklist.md.
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:
- Read through quickly, highlighting unclear parts
- Don't correct yet—just note problem areas
- After marking issues, recommend specific edits
- 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:
- Read aloud to hear inconsistencies
- Mark where tone shifts unexpectedly
- Recommend edits that smooth transitions
- 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:
- Read each claim and literally ask "so what?"
- Highlight claims missing the answer
- Add the benefit bridge or deeper meaning
- 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:
- Identify every claim that needs proof
- Check if proof exists nearby
- Flag unsupported assertions
- 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:
| Vague | Specific |
|---|---|
| Save time | Save 4 hours every week |
| Many customers | 2,847 teams |
| Fast results | Results in 14 days |
| Improve your workflow | Cut your reporting time in half |
| Great support | Response within 2 hours |
Common specificity issues:
- Adjectives doing the work nouns should do
- Benefits without quantification
- Outcomes without timeframes
- Claims without concrete examples
Process:
- Highlight vague words and phrases
- Ask "Can this be more specific?"
- Add numbers, timeframes, or examples
- 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:
- Read for emotional impact—does it move you?
- Identify flat sections that should resonate
- Add emotional texture while staying authentic
- 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:
- Focus on sections near CTAs
- List every reason someone might hesitate
- Check if the copy addresses each concern
- 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.
Expert Panel Scoring
Use this after completing the Seven Sweeps for an additional quality gate. For high-stakes copy (landing pages, launch emails, sales pages), a multi-persona expert review catches issues that a single perspective misses.
How It Works
- Assemble 3-5 expert personas relevant to the copy type
- Each persona scores the copy 1-10 on their area of expertise
- Collect specific critiques — not just scores, but what to fix
- Revise based on feedback — address the lowest-scoring areas first
- Re-score after revisions — iterate until all personas score 7+, with an average of 8+ across the panel
Recommended Expert Panels
Landing page copy:
- Conversion copywriter (clarity, CTA strength, benefit hierarchy)
- UX writer (scannability, cognitive load, user flow)
- Target customer persona (does this speak to me? do I trust it?)
- Brand strategist (voice consistency, positioning accuracy)
Email sequence:
- Email marketing specialist (subject lines, open/click optimization)
- Copywriter (hooks, storytelling, persuasion)
- Spam filter analyst (deliverability red flags, trigger words)
- Target customer persona (relevance, value, unsubscribe risk)
Sales page / long-form:
- Direct response copywriter (offer structure, objection handling, urgency)
- Skeptical buyer persona (proof gaps, trust issues, red flags)
- Editor (flow, readability, conciseness)
- SEO specialist (keyword coverage, search intent alignment)
Scoring Rubric
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Publish-ready. No meaningful improvements. |
| 7-8 | Strong. Minor tweaks only. |
| 5-6 | Functional but has clear gaps. Needs another pass. |
| 3-4 | Significant issues. Major revision needed. |
| 1-2 | Fundamentally broken. Rethink approach. |
When to Use
- Always for launch copy, pricing pages, and high-traffic landing pages
- Recommended for email sequences, sales pages, and ad copy
- Optional for blog posts, social content, and internal docs
- Skip for quick updates, minor edits, and low-stakes content
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:
| Weak | Strong |
|---|---|
| Utilize | Use |
| Implement | Set up |
| Leverage | Use |
| Facilitate | Help |
Replace with the fact (a synonym swap just makes a new tell):
| Vague | Write the fact instead |
|---|---|
| Innovative / cutting-edge | What it does that alternatives don't |
| Robust | The uptime, scale, or failure case it handles |
| Seamless | The real setup step count or time |
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
AI-Tell Check
Run this on every edit, after the sweeps. A reader who spots an AI tell tends to doubt the claims around it. The shape of a sentence gives it away more than any word does.
Fix every instance of these:
| Pattern | Example | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Contrast reveal | "It's not X, it's Y." "Not because X. Because Y." | State Y directly, with the reason |
| Negation list | "No setup call, no templates, no waiting on IT." | Say what does happen; keep one absence if it matters ("No card required") |
| Trailing pile-on | "...the data you already have, no exports, no spreadsheets." / "..., ensuring nothing slips." | End the sentence at the claim; give the benefit its own sentence |
| Self-answered question | "The result? 3x faster." | Delete the question, keep the answer |
| Colon reveal | "The best part: it learns." | Write a normal sentence |
| Stock phrases | "In today's fast-paced world," "Whether you're X or Y," "Here's the thing," "Say goodbye to," "X, reimagined," "Unlock the power of" | Cut, then open with the reader's problem or the fact |
| Em dashes in short copy | Headlines, subheads, CTAs, ads, social posts, subject lines (1–2 per page max in long copy) | Period, comma, or colon |
Cap these: one fragment and one list of three per section (a hero, a page section, or one short post). Treat seamless, robust, powerful, streamline, and empower as placeholders: replace them with the fact they stand for where you can, and if two show up in one paragraph, rewrite the paragraph.
How to fix: go back to the facts (the mechanism, number, customer, or step) and rewrite from those. Swapping in synonyms creates new tells. If the fact isn't available, mark [NEED: ...] instead of inventing one. Keep the brand's register. A formal sentence that makes a specific claim is fine.
Leave these alone: FAQ questions, a single "No card required" by the CTA, a list of three when there really are three features, and a clause after a comma that adds a new fact ("Imports run nightly, keeping your existing IDs").
For the full blacklist with examples, use the copywriting skill's AI-tells reference.
Copy Editing Checklist
For a final QA pass before delivering edits, work through the full checklist in references/checklist.md — covering all seven sweeps plus pre-start and final-check items.
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: Reads as AI-Written
Symptom: "Not X. Y." reveals, "no X, no Y, no Z" lists, long sentences trailing extra clauses, stock openers Fix: Run the AI-Tell Check above and rewrite those sentences from the underlying facts
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:
- Run a sweep and present findings - Show what you found, why it's an issue
- Recommend specific edits - Don't just identify problems; propose solutions
- Request the updated copy - Let the author make final decisions
- Verify previous sweeps - After each round of edits, re-check earlier sweeps
- 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
- Content Refresh: SERP gap analysis, full checklist, refresh vs. rewrite matrix, and cadence guide
- Copy Editing Checklist: Full QA checklist across all seven sweeps plus the AI-tell check
Content Refresh Editing
Copy editing isn't just for new content. Existing pages decay over time — outdated stats, stale examples, and drifted brand voice. Use the content refresh framework when traffic is declining, data is stale, or the product has changed.
For the SERP gap analysis, full refresh checklist, refresh vs. rewrite decision matrix, and cadence guide: See references/content-refresh.md
Task-Specific Questions
- What's the goal of this copy? (Awareness, conversion, retention)
- What action should readers take?
- Are there specific concerns or known issues?
- What proof/evidence do you have available?
- Is this new copy or a refresh of existing content?
Related Skills
- copywriting: For writing new copy from scratch (use this skill to edit after your first draft is complete)
- cro: For broader page optimization beyond copy
- marketing-psychology: For understanding why certain edits improve conversion
- ab-testing: For testing copy variations
When to Use Each Skill
| Task | Skill to Use |
|---|---|
| Writing new page copy from scratch | copywriting |
| Reviewing and improving existing copy | copy-editing (this skill) |
| Editing copy you just wrote | copy-editing (this skill) |
| Structural or strategic page changes | cro |
相關資源

Humanizer
Skill对照维基百科「AI 写作迹象」归纳的 25 类模式,标出并改写文本中的 AI 腔,保留原意、不编造事实,可提供样文让改写贴近个人文风。
blader/humanizer57.5k
Copywriting
Skill为首页、落地页、定价页等撰写或改写营销文案:先梳理页面目标、受众与卖点,再产出标题、价值主张与行动号召。出自 marketingskills 合集。
coreyhaines31/marketingskills55.1k
Humanizer-zh
Skill中文版 Humanizer:删改文章、评论和文档里的空话、重复与模板化表达,保留事实、确定程度和作者语气,不承诺通过 AI 检测。
op7418/Humanizer-zh19.9k
dbskill
Skill面向创业者与内容创作者的中文商业技能箱,33 个技能覆盖商业模式诊断、对标研究、选题、短视频开头与小红书标题、行动卡点与决策复盘,由 /dbs 自动编排。采用 CC BY-NC 4.0 许可。
dontbesilent2025/dbskill10.7k
SEO Machine
Skill专写长篇 SEO 博客的 Claude Code 工作区。用 /research、/write、/rewrite、/optimize 等命令完成关键词调研、写稿、改旧文和发布前检查,写完会自动运行 SEO、元信息、内链等子代理。需要克隆仓库,并先填写品牌语气等资料;分析模块需要 Python,可选接入 GA4、Search Console 和 WordPress 发布。
TheCraigHewitt/seomachine7.5k
avoid-ai-writing
Skill审查并改写文字里的 AI 腔:按 70 多类模式与分级替换词表检出套话,支持仅检测、改写与原地编辑三种模式,可选语气配置。规则针对英文校准。
conorbronsdon/avoid-ai-writing5k