copy-editing

name	copy-editing
description	Systematic copy editing through focused passes covering clarity, voice consistency, benefit framing, proof validation, specificity, emotional impact, and friction removal. Includes the Seven Sweeps Framework, editorial checklists, common problem diagnosis, and style consistency standards. Use when editing marketing copy, reviewing drafts, polishing content, proofreading, or when user mentions edit copy, review copy, copy feedback, proofread, polish, copy sweep, editorial review, or fact-checking.
license	MIT
metadata	{"version":"1.0.0","author":"borghei","category":"marketing","domain":"copywriting","updated":"2026-03-09T00:00:00.000Z"}

Copy Editing

Systematic copy improvement through focused editorial passes that enhance clarity, voice, proof, and conversion impact.

---

Table of Contents

• Keywords
• Quick Start
• The Seven Sweeps Framework
• Quick-Pass Editing Guide
• Common Copy Problems and Fixes
• Style Consistency Standards
• Fact-Checking Protocol
• Editorial Checklist
• Best Practices
• Integration Points

---

Keywords

copy editing, editorial review, copy feedback, proofreading, content polishing, copy sweep, editorial standards, style consistency, grammar check, fact-checking, clarity editing, voice consistency, benefit framing, proof validation, specificity, conversion copy editing, marketing copy review, copy quality

---

Quick Start

Full Copy Review (Seven Sweeps)

1. Read through once without editing to understand the whole piece
2. Sweep 1 — Clarity: flag confusing sentences, unclear references, jargon
3. Sweep 2 — Voice and Tone: flag shifts in formality, personality inconsistencies
4. Sweep 3 — So What: flag features without benefits, claims without consequences
5. Sweep 4 — Prove It: flag unsubstantiated claims, missing social proof
6. Sweep 5 — Specificity: flag vague language, round numbers, generic statements
7. Sweep 6 — Heightened Emotion: strengthen pain points, aspirations, urgency
8. Sweep 7 — Zero Risk: remove barriers near CTAs, add trust signals

Quick Copy Pass

1. Cut filler words (very, really, just, actually, basically)
2. Replace weak verbs (utilize > use, facilitate > help, leverage > use)
3. Fix passive voice (reports are generated > we generate reports)
4. Verify one idea per sentence, one topic per paragraph
5. Check CTA for action orientation

---

The Seven Sweeps Framework

Edit through seven sequential passes. Each focuses on one dimension. After each sweep, verify previous sweeps are not compromised.

Sweep 1: Clarity

Focus: Can the reader understand what you are saying on the first read?

What to check:

• Sentences trying to say too much (split them)
• Unclear pronoun references ("it" — what is "it"?)
• Jargon or insider language without explanation
• Ambiguous statements that could be read two ways
• Missing context that assumes reader knowledge

Clarity killers to fix:

Problem	Fix
Sentence over 30 words	Split into two sentences
Abstract language	Replace with concrete example
Buried main point	Move to beginning of paragraph
Three-clause sentence	Simplify to one or two clauses
Undefined acronym	Spell out on first use

After this sweep: Confirm the "Rule of One" (one idea per section) and "You Rule" (copy speaks to the reader as "you") are intact.

Sweep 2: Voice and Tone

Focus: Does the copy sound consistent throughout?

What to check:

• Shifts between formal and casual language
• Inconsistent brand personality (joking in one paragraph, corporate in the next)
• Jarring mood changes without transition
• Word choices that do not match the established voice
• Mixing "we" and "the company" references

Voice consistency indicators:

Consistent	Inconsistent
Same level of contractions throughout	Contractions in some sections, full forms in others
Humor style maintained	Random joke in otherwise serious copy
Same sentence structure patterns	Short punchy intro, corporate middle, casual close
Consistent use of "you"	Switching between "you," "users," "customers," "one"

After this sweep: Return to Sweep 1 to ensure voice edits did not introduce confusion.

Sweep 3: So What

Focus: Does every claim answer "why should I care?"

The So What test: For every statement, ask "So what?" If the copy does not answer with a deeper benefit, it needs work.

Before (features only)	After (feature + benefit)
"Our platform uses AI-powered analytics"	"Our AI analytics surface insights you would miss manually — so you make better decisions in half the time"
"SOC 2 Type II certified"	"SOC 2 certified — your security team approves us in days, not months"
"Real-time dashboard"	"See exactly what is happening right now, not what happened last week"

After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 2 and 1.

Sweep 4: Prove It

Focus: Is every claim backed with evidence?

Types of proof to verify:

Proof Type	Strength	Example
Named testimonial	Strong	"Sarah Chen, VP Marketing at Stripe: 'Reduced our setup time by 60%'"
Specific statistic	Strong	"2,847 teams use [Product] daily"
Case study reference	Strong	"See how Linear reduced churn by 23% in 90 days"
Third-party validation	Strong	"Named a Leader in Gartner's Magic Quadrant 2025"
Customer logos	Medium	Recognizable brand logos with permission
Generic claim	Weak — flag it	"Customers love us," "Industry-leading"

Common proof gaps to flag:

• "Trusted by thousands" (which thousands? give a number)
• "Industry-leading" (according to whom? cite the source)
• "Best-in-class" (by what measure?)
• "Customers love us" (show them saying it)
• Results claims without timeframe or specifics

After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 3, 2, and 1.

Sweep 5: Specificity

Focus: Is the copy concrete enough to be compelling?

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 reporting time from 4 hours to 15 minutes"
"Great support"	"Average response time: 2 hours"
"Easy to use"	"Set up in 10 minutes, no code required"
"Affordable"	"Starting at $29/month"
"Scalable"	"Handles 10,000 to 10 million records without slowdown"

Rule: If a claim cannot be made specific, it is probably filler. Cut it or replace it with something verifiable.

After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 4, 3, 2, and 1.

Sweep 6: Heightened Emotion

Focus: Does the copy make the reader feel something?

Emotional dimensions to check:

Emotion	Where to Use	Technique
Pain/frustration	Problem section	Paint the "before" state vividly
Relief	Solution section	Show the contrast with current pain
Fear of missing out	Social proof	"Teams like yours already use..."
Pride	Aspiration section	"Be the team that..."
Confidence	CTA area	"Join 2,847 teams who already..."
Urgency	Near CTA	Only if genuine (real deadline, limited spots)

Emotion techniques:

• Paint the "before" state with sensory detail
• Use micro-stories (1-2 sentences) from customer scenarios
• Ask questions that prompt self-reflection
• Reference shared experiences the audience recognizes

After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1.

Sweep 7: Zero Risk

Focus: Have we removed every barrier to action?

Friction checklist near CTAs:

• What happens after clicking is clear (not a mystery)
• Objections addressed within 2 scrolls of the CTA
• Trust signals visible (guarantee, certifications, customer count)
• Next steps are specific ("Start your 14-day free trial" not "Get started")
• Risk reversals stated explicitly (money-back, no CC, cancel anytime)
• Privacy concerns addressed if form collects data

After this sweep: Return through all previous sweeps one final time.

---

Quick-Pass Editing Guide

Word-Level Cuts

Always cut: very, really, extremely, incredibly, quite, rather, somewhat, just, actually, basically, essentially, literally (unless literal), in order to (use "to"), the fact that, it should be noted that, it is important to

Always replace:

Weak	Strong
Utilize	Use
Implement	Set up, build, create
Leverage	Use, apply
Facilitate	Help, enable
Innovative	New, original, first-of-its-kind
Robust	Strong, thorough, [be specific]
Seamless	Smooth, easy, [be specific]
Cutting-edge	Modern, latest, [be specific]
Synergy	[Delete or be specific about the collaboration]
Paradigm	[Delete or say what actually changed]

Sentence-Level Checks

• One idea per sentence
• Vary sentence length (mix 8-word and 20-word sentences)
• Front-load important information (do not bury the point)
• Maximum 3 conjunctions per sentence
• Active voice default (flip passive constructions)

Paragraph-Level Checks

• One topic per paragraph
• 2-4 sentences maximum for web copy
• Strong opening sentence that states the paragraph's point
• Logical flow between paragraphs
• White space for scannability

---

Common Copy Problems and Fixes

Problem	Symptom	Fix
Wall of features	List of what it does, no why	Add "which means..." after each feature
Corporate speak	"Leverage synergies to optimize outcomes"	Ask "How would a human say this?"
Weak opening	Starts with company history or vague statement	Lead with reader's problem or desired outcome
Buried CTA	Ask comes after too much buildup	Make CTA obvious, early, and repeated
No proof	"Customers love us" with no evidence	Add specific testimonials, numbers, case references
Generic claims	"We help businesses grow"	Specify who, how, and by how much
Mixed audiences	Tries to speak to everyone	Pick one audience per page/section
Feature overload	Every capability listed	Focus on 3-5 benefits that matter most
Passive voice	"Reports are generated by the system"	"The system generates reports"
Weasel words	"Up to 50% improvement"	State the median or typical result with context

---

Style Consistency Standards

Checklist for Style Consistency

• Oxford comma: used consistently (or consistently omitted)
• Contractions: consistent usage throughout
• Heading case: consistent (sentence case or title case, not mixed)
• Number style: consistent (spell out 1-9, numerals for 10+, or chosen standard)
• Date format: consistent (March 9, 2026 or 2026-03-09, not mixed)
• Brand name: capitalized and formatted consistently
• Product/feature names: capitalized consistently per brand standards
• Bulleted lists: consistent punctuation (periods or no periods)
• Acronyms: spelled out on first use in each document
• Em dashes, en dashes, hyphens: used correctly and consistently
• Quotation marks: consistent style (straight or curly)

Common Style Conflicts

Decision	Option A	Option B	How to Decide
Oxford comma	Yes	No	Pick one, document it, enforce it
Heading capitalization	Sentence case	Title Case	Sentence case is modern standard
"Login" vs "Log in"	One word (noun)	Two words (verb)	"Log in" as verb, "Login" as noun/adjective
"Setup" vs "Set up"	One word (noun)	Two words (verb)	Same pattern as login
Ampersand vs "and"	&	and	"and" in prose, "&" only in headings if brand standard

---

Fact-Checking Protocol

What to Verify

• All statistics have a named source and year
• Customer testimonials are attributed to real, named individuals
• Customer logos are used with permission
• Competitive claims are accurate and current
• Product capabilities described are actually available (not roadmap items)
• Pricing is current and matches the pricing page
• Certifications and compliance claims are active (SOC 2, GDPR, etc.)
• Awards and recognition are current year or specified year
• Integration claims list actual integrations, not aspirational ones
• Uptime/SLA claims match the actual SLA

Red Flags to Investigate

• Round numbers without source (sounds made up)
• Superlatives without qualification ("fastest," "best," "only")
• Claims that contradict other pages on the same site
• Screenshots from an older version of the product
• Competitor comparisons without date (may be outdated)

---

Editorial Checklist

Pre-Edit

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

During Edit (Seven Sweeps Summary)

• Sweep 1: Every sentence is immediately understandable
• Sweep 2: Voice is consistent throughout
• Sweep 3: Every feature connects to a benefit
• Sweep 4: Claims are substantiated with evidence
• Sweep 5: Vague words replaced with specifics
• Sweep 6: Copy evokes appropriate emotion
• Sweep 7: Barriers to action removed near CTAs

Post-Edit

• No typos or grammatical errors
• Consistent formatting throughout
• Core message preserved through all edits
• All links functional (if applicable)
• Consistent style applied (see style checklist)

---

Best Practices

1. Edit in passes, not all at once — Trying to fix everything in one read misses issues. Each sweep catches what the others miss.

2. Preserve the author's voice — Good copy editing enhances; it does not replace. Maintain the original voice while improving clarity and impact.

3. Every edit needs a reason — Never change a word without explaining the principle. "Changed because it is clearer" or "Replaced because the original was vague."

4. Prioritize by conversion impact — Fix the CTA before fixing a comma. Fix the headline before fixing paragraph 12.

5. Read aloud — Voice and rhythm problems become obvious when read aloud. If it sounds wrong spoken, it reads wrong too.

6. Flag what you cannot fix — If a claim needs proof the author must provide, flag it clearly. You can improve phrasing but you cannot invent evidence.

7. Re-check previous sweeps — Each sweep can introduce issues caught by earlier sweeps. Always go back.

8. Cut first, add second — Most marketing copy is 20-30% too long. Cut the fat before adding new content.

9. Get context before editing — A copy edit without knowing the audience, goal, and voice standard produces misaligned feedback.

10. Track recurring issues — If the same problems appear across multiple pieces, the issue is systemic. Flag it as a process improvement, not just an edit.

---

Integration Points

• Copywriting — Use for writing new copy from scratch. Copy Editing handles reviewing and improving existing copy.
• Content Humanizer — Use when AI-generated copy needs humanization before editorial review.
• Content Production — Use Copy Editing as part of the production pipeline between drafting and publishing.
• Brand Guidelines — Reference brand voice and style standards during the Voice and Tone sweep.
• Marketing Psychology — Apply psychological principles during the Heightened Emotion sweep.
• Content Strategy — Use when the problem is what to say, not how to say it.

---

Troubleshooting

Problem	Likely Cause	Fix
Same issues appear across multiple pieces from the same writer	Systemic writing habit, not a one-off error	Create a writer-specific checklist of recurring issues; address in style guide or training, not just per-piece edits
Copy loses its original voice after editing	Editor over-corrected; replaced author voice with editor's style	Preserve author voice — enhance clarity and impact without rewriting personality. Read original aloud before editing
Edits introduce new inconsistencies	Previous sweeps not re-checked after later sweeps modified content	Always re-run earlier sweeps after making changes — Sweep 7 edits can break Sweep 1 clarity
CTA buried or ineffective despite multiple edit passes	CTA was not the focus of any sweep — copy editing focused on prose quality	Prioritize CTA area first (Sweep 7: Zero Risk) before polishing earlier sections
Fact-checking reveals unverifiable claims	Writer invented statistics or used outdated data	Flag and return to writer — editor cannot invent evidence. Document all unverifiable claims explicitly
Style inconsistencies between sections	Multiple writers contributed or copy was assembled from different drafts	Run style consistency checklist end-to-end; standardize contractions, heading case, number format, and punctuation

---

Success Criteria

• Seven Sweeps completion: All 7 sweeps completed per piece with previous sweeps re-verified after each pass
• Error rate: Zero grammatical errors, typos, or broken links in published copy
• Style consistency: 100% adherence to documented style guide (Oxford comma, heading case, number format, etc.)
• Fact verification: All statistics have named source and year; all claims are verifiable or labeled as opinion
• CTA effectiveness: Every piece has a clear, specific CTA visible within 2 scrolls of the content end
• Clarity score: Every sentence understandable on first read — zero ambiguous pronoun references or multi-clause confusion
• Edit turnaround: 48-hour maximum turnaround on editorial review with clear change documentation

---

Scope & Limitations

In scope:

• Seven Sweeps editorial framework (clarity, voice, so-what, proof, specificity, emotion, zero-risk)
• Quick-pass editing (word-level, sentence-level, paragraph-level)
• Style consistency auditing and enforcement
• Fact-checking protocol for claims, statistics, and competitive references
• Pre-edit and post-edit checklists
• Common copy problem diagnosis and fixing

Out of scope:

• Writing new copy from scratch (use Copywriting skill)
• AI content detection and humanization (use Content Humanizer)
• SEO optimization passes (use Content Production optimization pipeline)
• Content strategy or topic selection (use Content Strategy)
• Visual design or layout feedback
• Legal review of marketing claims

Known limitations:

• Cannot verify internal company claims (product capabilities, uptime SLAs) without access to product documentation
• Fact-checking external claims requires access to original sources — may need writer input
• Style consistency requires an existing style guide; without one, editor must make judgment calls
• Emotional impact (Sweep 6) is subjective and varies by audience — use target audience context
• Multi-language copy editing requires native-level proficiency in each language

---

Scripts

# Score content readability with detailed metrics
python scripts/readability_scorer.py article.md --json

# Detect AI patterns that need humanization before editing
python scripts/ai_pattern_detector.py article.md --verbose

# Check style consistency across multiple documents
python scripts/style_checker.py --files doc1.md doc2.md doc3.md --json