Copy Editing workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs 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 and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
La commande reste sur une seule ligne. Faites défiler horizontalement pour la vérifier avant de la copier.
Vous préférez une copie locale ? Téléchargez les fichiers actuellement disponibles dans SkillsMP.
Explorateur de fichiers
3 fichiers
Affichage de SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Instructions source · Aperçu en lecture seule
name
copy-editing-v3
description
Copy Editing workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs 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 and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.
This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-bundle-creative-director/skills/copy-editing from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.
Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.
This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.
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.
Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Core Philosophy, The Seven Sweeps Framework, Quick-Pass Editing Checks, Copy Editing Checklist, Working with Copy Sweeps, Questions to Ask.
When to Use This Skill
Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.
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 - page-cro
Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: 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.
Operating Table
Situation
Start here
Why it matters
First-time use
metadata.json
Confirms repository, branch, commit, and imported path through the external_source block before touching the copied workflow
Provenance review
ORIGIN.md
Gives reviewers a plain-language audit trail for the imported source
Workflow execution
SKILL.md
Starts with the smallest copied file that materially changes execution
Supporting context
SKILL.md
Adds the next most relevant copied source file without loading the entire package
Handoff decision
## Related Skills
Helps the operator switch to a stronger native skill when the task drifts
Workflow
This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.
Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.
Imported Workflow Notes
Imported: Core Philosophy
Good copy editing isn't about rewriting—it's about enhancing. 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
Examples
Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly
Use @copy-editing-v3 to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.
Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.
Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review
Review @copy-editing-v3 against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.
Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.
Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution
Use @copy-editing-v3 for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.
Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.
Example 4: Build a reviewer packet
Review @copy-editing-v3 using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.
Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.
Best Practices
Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.
Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.
Troubleshooting
Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically
Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-bundle-creative-director/skills/copy-editing, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all.
Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.
Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review
Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task.
Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.
Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization
Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better.
Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.
Imported Troubleshooting Notes
Imported: 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: Feature Overload
Symptom: Listing every capability, overwhelming the reader
Fix: Focus on 3-5 key benefits that matter most to the audience
Related Skills
@ab-test-setup-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@algolia-search-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@algorithmic-art-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@analytics-tracking-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
Additional Resources
Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.
Resource family
What it gives the reviewer
Example path
references
copied reference notes, guides, or background material from upstream
references/n/a
examples
worked examples or reusable prompts copied from upstream
examples/n/a
scripts
upstream helper scripts that change execution or validation
scripts/n/a
agents
routing or delegation notes that are genuinely part of the imported package
agents/n/a
assets
supporting assets or schemas copied from the source package
assets/n/a
Imported Reference Notes
Imported: 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.
Imported: Quick-Pass Editing Checks
Use these for faster reviews when a full seven-sweep process isn't needed.
