菜单
When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy — 'edit this copy,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'tighten this up,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging.' Use when copy exists and needs improving, not rewriting from scratch. For writing new copy, see copywriting.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
When the user wants to write, rewrite, or improve marketing copy for any page — homepage, landing, pricing, feature, about, or product pages; "headline help," "CTA copy," "value proposition," "tagline," "hero section," "make this more compelling," "conversion copy," or complete Figma-ready full-page copy (see Full-Page Mode below). For email copy, see email-sequence. For popups, see popup-cro. For editing existing copy, see copy-editing.
When the user wants to increase conversions on any marketing page — homepage, landing, pricing, feature, or blog; "CRO," "this page isn't converting," "low conversion rate," "bounce rate," "my landing page sucks" — or just shares a URL asking for feedback. For signup flows, see signup-flow-cro; post-signup activation, onboarding-cro; forms, form-cro; popups, popup-cro.
When the user wants to audit or diagnose SEO issues — "technical SEO," "why am I not ranking," "meta tags review," "my traffic dropped," "Google update hit me," "core web vitals," "crawl errors," "indexing issues," or even a vague "my SEO is bad." For pages at scale, see programmatic-seo. For structured data, see schema-markup. For AI search, see ai-seo.
Coder<->reviewer handoff loop (Claude<->Codex, roles swappable) with self-instrumented per-round cost tracking. Loops locally via HANDOFF.md until approved, then opens a PR with the full transcript.
Act as a Senior Accessibility Engineer to audit a page, component, or design against WCAG 2.2 AA. Produces a triaged finding list (critical/serious/moderate), focus-order map, contrast report, ARIA decision tree, and a screen-reader test plan. Use when shipping new UI, hardening an existing flow, or preparing for VPAT/accessibility conformance.
When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment — "split test," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," or comparing two versions. For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking. For page-level conversion optimization, see page-cro.
| name | copy-editing |
| description | When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy — 'edit this copy,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'tighten this up,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging.' Use when copy exists and needs improving, not rewriting from scratch. For writing new copy, see copywriting. |
| category | marketing |
| tier | on-demand |
Systematically improve existing marketing copy through focused editing passes while preserving the core message.
Product context: If .agents/product-marketing-context.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing-context.md in older setups), read it first and tailor output to it; only ask for what it doesn't cover.
Editing is enhancing, not rewriting. Key principles: don't change the core message; multiple focused passes beat one unfocused review; every edit needs a clear reason; preserve the author's voice while improving clarity.
Edit through seven sequential passes, one dimension each. After each sweep, loop back to check previous sweeps aren't compromised.
Focus: Can the reader understand what you're saying?
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 without correcting yet. Then recommend specific edits and verify they 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.
Focus: Is the copy consistent in how it sounds?
Check: shifts between formal and casual, inconsistent brand personality, jarring mood changes, word choices that don't match the brand.
Common voice issues: starting casual then becoming corporate, mixing "we" and "the company," unintentional humor/serious swings, technical language appearing randomly.
Process: Read aloud to hear inconsistencies, mark unexpected tone shifts, smooth transitions, keep personality throughout.
After this sweep: Return to Clarity to ensure voice edits didn't introduce confusion.
Focus: Does every claim answer "why should I care?"
Check: features without benefits, claims without consequences, statements that don't connect to the reader's life, missing "which means..." bridges.
The So What test: For every statement, ask "Okay, so what?" If the copy doesn't answer 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 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: Ask "so what?" of each claim, highlight claims missing the answer, add the benefit bridge, ensure benefits connect to real reader desires.
After this sweep: Return to Voice and Tone, then Clarity.
Focus: Is every claim supported with evidence?
Check: unsubstantiated claims, missing social proof, assertions without backup, "best" or "leading" without evidence.
Types of proof: 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 needing 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.
Focus: Is the copy concrete enough to be compelling?
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 issues: adjectives doing the work nouns should do, benefits without quantification, outcomes without timeframes, claims without concrete examples.
Process: Highlight vague phrases, ask "Can this be more specific?", add numbers/timeframes/examples, remove anything that can't be made specific (probably filler).
After this sweep: Return to Prove It, So What, Voice and Tone, then Clarity.
Focus: Does the copy make the reader feel something?
Check: flat informational language, missing emotional triggers, pain points mentioned but not felt, aspirations stated but not evoked.
Emotional dimensions: 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: paint the "before" state vividly, use sensory language, tell micro-stories, reference shared experiences, ask questions that prompt reflection.
Process: Read for emotional impact, 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.
Focus: Have we removed every barrier to action?
Check: friction near CTAs, unanswered objections, missing trust signals, unclear next steps, hidden costs or surprises.
Risk reducers: 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 a clear next step.
Process: Focus on sections near CTAs, list every reason someone might hesitate, check 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.
For faster reviews when a full seven-sweep process isn't needed.
Cut: very, really, extremely, incredibly (weak intensifiers); just, actually, basically (filler); "in order to" (use "to"); "that" (often unnecessary); things, stuff (vague).
Replace:
| Weak | Strong |
|---|---|
| Utilize | Use |
| Implement | Set up |
| Leverage | Use |
| Facilitate | Help |
| Innovative | New |
| Robust | Strong |
| Seamless | Smooth |
| Cutting-edge | New/Modern |
Watch for: adverbs (usually unnecessary), passive voice (switch to active), nominalizations ("make a decision" → "decide").
When editing collaboratively: (1) run a sweep and present findings with reasons, (2) recommend specific edits, not just problems, (3) request the updated copy — the author decides, (4) re-check earlier sweeps after each round of edits, (5) repeat until a full sweep finds no new issues. This keeps edits from creating new problems while respecting the author's ownership.
| 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 |
