copy-editing

name

copy-editing

description

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.

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:

Weak	Stronger
"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