copy-verify

name	copy-verify
description	Copy verification checklist — 13-item pass/fail check on draft or published copy. Voice rules, grounding, Shaw check, steward voice. Read-only diagnostic.
user_invocable	true

Copy Verify — Atomic Skill

Purpose

13-item verification checklist for any copy — draft or published. Catches voice violations, ungrounded claims, missing updates, Shaw failures, and steward voice drift. Shared by /copy edit, /copy write, and /audit baseline.

Read-only diagnostic. Reports pass/fail per item, never auto-fixes.

Usage

/copy-verify [page-path]   # Verify a specific page
/copy-verify               # Verify the most recently edited page

Context

Read

• Draft or published page content + frontmatter
• _data/index.json — navigation, manifesto
• voice/copywriting-protocol.md — voice rules
• voice/agent-voice.md — operating protocol

Invoke (as needed)

• /knowledge → verify claims are grounded in real history → source-attributed results
• /grip-test → stranger test on the same copy → Fingernail/Grip/Lock rating

Lens Criteria (embedded)

The 13-item checklist below IS this skill's criteria.

Checklist

Run every item. Report pass/fail with specifics on failures.

1. Does the opener make a stranger feel the problem (not just know about it)?
2. Does it pass the Fingernail Test at Grip or Lock? (Run /grip-test if needed)
3. Is every specific detail traceable to a verified source?
4. Zero em dashes?
5. Zero banned words? (paradigm, leverage, passionate, innovative, synergy, empower, journey, transformative)
6. No fortune-cookie closer?
7. Negation-affirmation ("Not X. Y.") only where earned? Each instance must correct a genuine misunderstanding the reader would actually have. If the negation is emphasis or contrast rather than misdirection correction, rewrite it.
8. No ungrounded metaphors?
9. No personification of tools/methods? ("does the thinking", "holds itself")
10. Shaw check: does the copy feel like a room, not a pitch? Do the references and subject matter paint the specific person? If you stripped the name, would this feel wrong on someone else's site?
11. Steward voice: does this read like someone explaining it to a person standing next to them, or like internal monologue extracted from a working session? Same vocabulary, same expertise, but the posture is talking, not thinking. The shop steward knows everything the engineer knows — he just tells you like a person.
12. Does the frontmatter (context/drift/scaffold/fidelity) match the body?
13. Does the _data/index.json entry need updating to match?

Output

Print in conversation. No file changes. Format:

# Copy Verify — [page name]

## Result: [X/13 passed]

1. Opener lands: [PASS/FAIL] — [note]
2. Grip test: [PASS/FAIL] — [Fingernail/Grip/Lock]
3. Details grounded: [PASS/FAIL] — [unverifiable claims if any]
4. Em dashes: [PASS/FAIL] — [count if any]
5. Banned words: [PASS/FAIL] — [words found if any]
6. Fortune-cookie closer: [PASS/FAIL]
7. Negation-affirmation: [PASS/FAIL] — [count, each must correct genuine misunderstanding]
8. Ungrounded metaphors: [PASS/FAIL] — [which ones]
9. Tool personification: [PASS/FAIL] — [instances]
10. Shaw check: [PASS/FAIL] — [note]
11. Steward voice: [PASS/FAIL] — [thinking voice vs talking voice]
12. Frontmatter match: [PASS/FAIL] — [mismatches]
13. Index.json sync: [PASS/FAIL] — [needs update?]

Complementary Check

/the-walk evaluates whether the page's example sequence builds the same room as the homepage. Copy-verify catches voice and grounding issues. The Walk catches positioning issues — a page can pass all 13 items and still build the wrong room if its examples position a secondary identity. When called from /copy edit or /copy review, The Walk runs alongside copy-verify.

Called By

• /copy edit — runs after writing draft (Phase 2, Step 6)
• /copy write — runs after writing draft
• /audit run — can be called for spot checks on published pages
• Standalone — usable anytime