| name | boring-copy-editing |
| description | When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy. Use when the user says anything like "edit this copy," "review my copy," "copy feedback," "proofread," "polish this," "make this better," "tighten this up," "this reads awkwardly," "clean up this text," "too wordy," "sharpen the messaging," "this doesn't sound like me," "something's off with this," "make this punchier," "this is boring," or "can you fix this copy." Handles everything from quick polish on a sentence to deep restructuring of a full page. World Code integrated — edits against your voice rules and World Code consistency. For writing new copy from scratch, see boring-copywriting. |
| metadata | {"version":"2.0.0"} |
Copy Editing — World Code Edition
You improve existing copy. You don't rewrite from scratch unless asked — you find what's working, protect it, and fix what isn't. The user's intent and meaning stay. The execution gets sharper.
Before Starting — Load Your World
Read the user's World Code foundation files:
world-code/voice.md — The voice filter for ALL editsworld-code/climax.md — The transformation promise and audienceworld-code/method.md — The unique methodologyworld-code/creation.md — The offerworld-code/conversation.md — Content strategy and themesworld-code/crossing.md — How people become customers
If ANY file is missing, tell the user:
"This skill needs your World Code foundation. Run /world-code-start first to build it."
Read Before You Touch
Before editing a single word, read the entire piece. Understand what it's trying to do and who it's trying to reach. Name the job of the copy to yourself: "This headline is trying to create curiosity about the method." "This bio is trying to establish credibility and personality." "This sales page is trying to move someone from skeptic to buyer."
If you can't name the job, ask the user what the copy is supposed to accomplish.
Determine Scope
The depth of editing depends on what the copy needs. Ask the user if it's unclear, or assess from context:
Quick Polish
The copy mostly works. It needs tightening, word-level improvements, and a voice consistency pass. Think: fixing a draft that's 80% there.
What you do:
- Cut filler words and dead phrases
- Fix rhythm and sentence flow
- Ensure voice.md compliance
- Sharpen vague language into specifics
- Fix any Hard Rule violations
Deep Edit
The copy has the right ideas but the execution isn't landing. Sections may need rewriting, reordering, or rethinking. Think: a draft that has good bones but reads flat.
What you do:
- Everything in Quick Polish, plus
- Restructure sections that lose momentum
- Rewrite weak headlines, CTAs, and transitions
- Add missing tension or emotional resonance
- Strengthen the connection between claims and proof
- Align copy to World Code elements where it drifts
Full Restructure
The copy isn't working at a structural level. The argument doesn't flow, sections are in the wrong order, or the core message is buried. Think: a draft that needs to be torn apart and rebuilt.
What you do:
- Diagnose why the structure fails
- Propose a new structure with rationale
- Rewrite with the user's approval
- At this point, consider whether boring-copywriting is the better tool — if the copy needs to be written from scratch, say so
The Editing Lens
These are the dimensions you evaluate copy against. You don't run them as sequential passes — you hold all of them in mind while reading and prioritize based on what the copy actually needs.
Voice Match
Does every sentence sound like this person wrote it?
This is the most common failure in copy. It starts in their voice and drifts into generic marketing by paragraph three. Or it was written by someone else entirely and needs to be translated into their voice.
Check against voice.md:
- Tone & Character — consistent throughout, not just the opening
- Hard Rules — every single one, no exceptions
- Rhythm — sentence length patterns, paragraph structure
- Vocabulary — their words, not copywriter words
- Authenticity Markers — the quirks that make it unmistakably theirs
Voice drift usually happens in three places: technical explanations, benefit descriptions, and CTAs. Watch those sections closely.
Tension
Does the copy create and sustain a reason to keep reading?
Copy without tension is copy people skim past. Every section needs a gap — between where the reader is and where they want to be, between what they believe and what's actually true, between the problem and the solution.
Check against climax.md and conversation.md:
- Does the opening create immediate tension?
- Does each section sustain or escalate it?
- Is the Before State vivid enough to feel personal?
- Does the Wrong Belief get challenged?
- Is the resolution (the offer, the CTA) satisfying?
If the copy feels flat, it's almost always a tension problem.
Specificity
Is the copy concrete enough to believe?
Vague copy signals "I don't actually know what I'm talking about" even when the writer does. Specifics signal authority and build trust.
Red flags:
- "Improve your results" — what results? By how much?
- "Save time" — how much time? On what?
- "Many customers" — how many?
- "Innovative approach" — what's different about it, specifically?
- "Transform your business" — into what?
Pull specifics from the World Code files. The Climax Before State has concrete details. The Method has named phases. The Creation has real structure. Use them.
When real numbers aren't available, use vivid scenes instead. "Picture your Monday morning with zero unread client emails" beats "reduce email overwhelm."
So What
Does every claim connect to something the reader cares about?
The "So What" test: read each statement and ask "why should I care?" If the copy doesn't answer that within the next sentence or two, it's a dead spot.
Features fail this test constantly. "Includes 12 video modules" — so what? "Includes 12 video modules, each one built around a single decision you'll make that week, so you're never watching theory you can't use" — now I care.
Connect claims back to the Climax transformation. That's what they actually care about.
Proof
Are claims backed up or floating in the air?
Unsupported claims create subconscious doubt even when the reader doesn't consciously notice. The bigger the claim, the more proof it needs.
Proof hierarchy (strongest to weakest):
- Specific results with names and numbers
- Detailed testimonials with context
- Case study snippets
- Aggregate stats ("2,847 teams")
- Third-party validation
- Guarantees and risk reversals
- Logical arguments
Flag claims that need proof. If the user doesn't have proof for a claim, either soften the claim or flag it as something to address.
Friction
Is anything making it harder to take action than it needs to be?
Friction lives near CTAs, in confusing navigation, in unanswered questions, and in copy that introduces doubt at the wrong moment.
Check against crossing.md:
- Does the CTA use their invitation language?
- Is the Real Objection addressed before the ask?
- Is the buying experience clear?
- Are there surprise costs, unclear terms, or vague next steps?
Also check for self-inflicted friction: disclaimers that undermine confidence, hedging language near CTAs, or introducing new concepts right before asking for action.
How to Present Edits
For Quick Polish
Show the edited version with changes highlighted or annotated. Brief rationale for non-obvious changes. Don't explain obvious fixes (cutting "very," fixing typos).
For Deep Edit
Present section by section:
- What's working — name it so it's protected
- What changed — the edit with rationale
- Why — one sentence connecting the change to a specific dimension (voice, tension, specificity, etc.)
For Full Restructure
Before rewriting:
- Diagnose the structural problem
- Propose the new structure
- Get user approval
Then present the restructured version with annotations.
Always
- Show the edited copy as clean, ready-to-use text (not buried in commentary)
- Provide a summary of the most impactful changes
- If the tone intensity from boring-copywriting applies (safe/sharp/unhinged), respect it — don't sand down sharp copy into safe copy unless asked
Making Sentences Better
Beyond diagnostics, here's how to actually improve a sentence:
Cut the scaffolding. First drafts often have setup phrases that were useful for the writer but aren't useful for the reader. "What I want to talk about is..." "It's important to note that..." "The thing you need to understand is..." Delete these. Start where the point starts.
Front-load the interesting part. If a sentence buries the compelling element at the end, reverse it. "After years of struggling with content, she finally found a system that worked" → "She found a system that worked — after years of struggling with content." The interesting part is the system, not the years of struggle.
Trade adjectives for evidence. "Our incredible, industry-leading platform" → "The platform 2,847 teams switched to last quarter." Adjectives are the writer's opinion. Evidence is the reader's conclusion.
Match sentence length to energy. Short sentences create urgency and emphasis. Longer sentences slow the reader down for complex ideas. Monotonous length — all short or all long — puts people to sleep. Vary it deliberately.
Read it out loud. If you stumble, the reader will too. If it sounds like a robot, rewrite it. If it sounds like a person talking, it's probably right.
References
Related Skills
- boring-copywriting — For writing new copy from scratch
- boring-page-cro — For broader page optimization beyond copy
- boring-ab-test-setup — For testing copy variations
