When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy. Also use when the user mentions 'edit this copy,' 'review my copy,' 'copy feedback,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'make this better,' 'copy sweep,' 'tighten this up,' 'this reads awkwardly,' 'clean up this text,' 'too wordy,' or 'sharpen the messaging.' Use this when the user already has copy and wants it improved rather than rewritten from scratch. For writing new copy, see copywriting.
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Um comando direto ignora o prompt de revisão. Verifique a origem antes de executá-lo.
Instruções da origem · Visualização somente leitura
name
copy-editing
description
When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy. Also use when the user mentions 'edit this copy,' 'review my copy,' 'copy feedback,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'make this better,' 'copy sweep,' 'tighten this up,' 'this reads awkwardly,' 'clean up this text,' 'too wordy,' or 'sharpen the messaging.' Use this when the user already has copy and wants it improved rather than rewritten from scratch. For writing new copy, see copywriting.
metadata
{"version":"1.1.0"}
cluster
growth-content
version
1.0.0
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.
Core Philosophy
Check for product marketing context first:
If .agents/product-marketing-context.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing-context.md in older setups), read it before editing. Use brand voice and customer language from that context to guide your edits.
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
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.
Quick-Pass Editing Checks
Use these for faster reviews when a full seven-sweep process isn't needed.
