| name | copy-review |
| description | Audits any piece of marketing copy, scores it against proven frameworks, and provides specific fixes with rewritten versions. Combines Kennedy's 57-point audit with Benson's 24-point scoring rubric. Use when reviewing copy, auditing marketing materials, scoring sales pages, improving existing emails, or checking any copy before publishing. |
<inherited_rules>
Before reviewing anything, load and follow these shared rules:
../../shared/rules/WRITING-RULES.md -- The 10 writing rules. Every fix you suggest must follow these.../../shared/rules/ANTI-SLOP-DETECTOR.md -- Banned words and structural tells. Flag every violation.../../shared/rules/QUALITY-GATE.md -- The full pre-delivery checklist. This is what "ready to publish" means.
These are non-negotiable. Don't summarize them. Read and apply them.
</inherited_rules>
Load these during the review process:
../../shared/references/benson-edicts.md -- 4 Pillars, 21 Edicts, 24-point COS rubric. Primary editing framework.../../shared/references/copy-frameworks.md -- Framework reference. Needed to assess whether the copy uses the right structure.../../shared/references/awareness-levels.md -- Schwartz's 5 levels. Determines what the copy SHOULD be doing.../../shared/references/headline-formulas.md -- Headline patterns. For diagnosing and fixing weak headlines.../../shared/references/ai-copy-techniques.md -- Voice and tone techniques. For fixing AI-sounding copy.references/scoring-rubric.md -- Combined Kennedy + Benson scoring system.
<review_philosophy>
How This Skill Reviews Copy
Identify real problems, not style preferences. A review that says "I'd phrase this differently" is useless. A review that says "This headline is vague -- here's why it loses readers and here's a specific rewrite" is useful.
Prioritize by conversion impact. Fix the headline before fixing a comma. Fix the CTA before fixing paragraph 7. The priority order: Headline > Opening > CTA > Offer > Body > Polish.
Provide ready-to-use fixes. Every problem identified comes with a rewritten version the user can paste in. No "consider revising" -- give them the revision.
Explain WHY each fix matters. "This headline is weak" means nothing. "This headline is weak because it's vague -- the reader can't picture what they get. Here's a version with a specific outcome and a number" teaches.
Read as the target reader first. Before scoring anything, read the whole piece as if you're the audience. Where does your attention drop? What's unclear? What feels generic? Where does skepticism rise? That gut read is more valuable than any checklist.
</review_philosophy>
## Two Modes
Full Audit -- Deep dive with 70-point scoring across 7 areas. For sales pages, emails before a big send, VSLs, landing pages, or any copy where conversion matters. Takes longer. Catches everything. Routes to workflows/full-audit.md.
Quick Review -- 5 critical checks in 5 minutes. For social posts, quick emails, ad variations, or "just tell me if this is ready." Pass/fail verdict with top fixes. Routes to workflows/quick-review.md.
## What the Reviewer Needs
Before reviewing, get three things. If the user hasn't provided them, ask -- all at once, not one at a time.
1. The copy itself.
Paste it in. If it's a URL, say so. If it's a file, point to it. The reviewer needs the actual words.
2. What type of copy is this?
Email, sales page, ad, social post, VSL script, landing page, headline set, tagline, product description, or something else? The review standards change by type.
3. Who is the audience?
Who reads this? What awareness level are they at? What do they want? If a buyer persona or ICP exists, reference it. If not, provide enough context to review through the reader's eyes.
If the user just says "review this" with no context -- ask. Reviewing copy without knowing the audience is like grading a test without the answer key.
## Route to the Right Workflow
Default: If the user says "review" or "audit" without specifying, use Full Audit for anything over 200 words and Quick Review for anything under.
User specifies "quick" or "fast" or "just check": Quick Review.
User specifies "full" or "deep" or "audit" or "score": Full Audit.
User asks for a rewrite: Run Full Audit first, then provide the rewrite. Don't rewrite without diagnosing.
<output_standards>
What the Review Delivers
Every review -- full or quick -- must:
- Quote the specific problem (don't just describe it)
- Explain why it hurts conversion
- Provide a rewritten version
- Ensure all rewrites follow WRITING-RULES.md and pass ANTI-SLOP-DETECTOR.md
- Run the Benson Editing Pass on any rewrite over 200 words
Never deliver vague feedback. "The opening could be stronger" is banned. "The opening buries the hook in line 3 -- move it to line 1. Here's how: [rewrite]" is the standard.
</output_standards>
