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.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing.md, or the legacy product-marketing-context.md filename, 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:

1. Read through quickly, highlighting unclear parts
2. Don't correct yet—just note problem areas
3. After marking issues, recommend specific edits
4. 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:

1. Read aloud to hear inconsistencies
2. Mark where tone shifts unexpectedly
3. Recommend edits that smooth transitions
4. 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:

1. Read each claim and literally ask "so what?"
2. Highlight claims missing the answer
3. Add the benefit bridge or deeper meaning
4. 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:

1. Identify every claim that needs proof
2. Check if proof exists nearby
3. Flag unsupported assertions
4. 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:

Common specificity issues:

• Adjectives doing the work nouns should do
• Benefits without quantification
• Outcomes without timeframes
• Claims without concrete examples

Process:

1. Highlight vague words and phrases
2. Ask "Can this be more specific?"
3. Add numbers, timeframes, or examples
4. 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:

1. Read for emotional impact—does it move you?
2. Identify flat sections that should resonate
3. Add emotional texture while staying authentic
4. 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:

1. Focus on sections near CTAs
2. List every reason someone might hesitate
3. Check if the copy addresses each concern
4. 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.

---

Expert Panel Scoring

Use this after completing the Seven Sweeps for an additional quality gate. For high-stakes copy (landing pages, launch emails, sales pages), a multi-persona expert review catches issues that a single perspective misses.

How It Works

1. Assemble 3-5 expert personas relevant to the copy type
2. Each persona scores the copy 1-10 on their area of expertise
3. Collect specific critiques — not just scores, but what to fix
4. Revise based on feedback — address the lowest-scoring areas first
5. Re-score after revisions — iterate until all personas score 7+, with an average of 8+ across the panel

Recommended Expert Panels

Landing page copy:

• Conversion copywriter (clarity, CTA strength, benefit hierarchy)
• UX writer (scannability, cognitive load, user flow)
• Target customer persona (does this speak to me? do I trust it?)
• Brand strategist (voice consistency, positioning accuracy)

Email sequence:

• Email marketing specialist (subject lines, open/click optimization)
• Copywriter (hooks, storytelling, persuasion)
• Spam filter analyst (deliverability red flags, trigger words)
• Target customer persona (relevance, value, unsubscribe risk)

Sales page / long-form:

• Direct response copywriter (offer structure, objection handling, urgency)
• Skeptical buyer persona (proof gaps, trust issues, red flags)
• Editor (flow, readability, conciseness)
• SEO specialist (keyword coverage, search intent alignment)

Scoring Rubric

When to Use

• Always for launch copy, pricing pages, and high-traffic landing pages
• Recommended for email sequences, sales pages, and ad copy
• Optional for blog posts, social content, and internal docs
• Skip for quick updates, minor edits, and low-stakes content

---

Quick-Pass Editing Checks

Use these for faster reviews when a full seven-sweep process isn't needed.

Word-Level Checks

Cut these words:

• Very, really, extremely, incredibly (weak intensifiers)
• Just, actually, basically (filler)
• In order to (use "to")
• That (often unnecessary)
• Things, stuff (vague)

Replace these:

Watch for:

• Adverbs (usually unnecessary)
• Passive voice (switch to active)
• Nominalizations (verb → noun: "make a decision" → "decide")

Sentence-Level Checks

• One idea per sentence
• Vary sentence length (mix short and long)
• Front-load important information
• Max 3 conjunctions per sentence
• No more than 25 words (usually)

Paragraph-Level Checks

• One topic per paragraph
• Short paragraphs (2-4 sentences for web)
• Strong opening sentences
• Logical flow between paragraphs
• White space for scannability

---

Copy Editing Checklist

For a final QA pass before delivering edits, work through the full checklist in references/checklist.md — covering all seven sweeps plus pre-start and final-check items.

---

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

---

Working with Copy Sweeps

When editing collaboratively:

1. Run a sweep and present findings - Show what you found, why it's an issue
2. Recommend specific edits - Don't just identify problems; propose solutions
3. Request the updated copy - Let the author make final decisions
4. Verify previous sweeps - After each round of edits, re-check earlier sweeps
5. Repeat until clean - Continue until a full sweep finds no new issues

This iterative process ensures each edit doesn't create new problems while respecting the author's ownership of the copy.

---

References

• Plain English Alternatives (references/plain-english-alternatives.md): Replace complex words with simpler alternatives
• Content Refresh (references/content-refresh.md): Full checklist, refresh vs. rewrite matrix, and cadence guide
• Copy Editing Checklist (references/checklist.md): Full QA checklist across all seven sweeps

---

Content Refresh Editing

Copy editing isn't just for new content. Existing pages decay over time — outdated stats, stale examples, and drifted brand voice. Use the content refresh framework when traffic is declining, data is stale, or the product has changed.

For the full refresh checklist, refresh vs. rewrite decision matrix, and cadence guide: See references/content-refresh.md

---

Task-Specific Questions

1. What's the goal of this copy? (Awareness, conversion, retention)
2. What action should readers take?
3. Are there specific concerns or known issues?
4. What proof/evidence do you have available?
5. Is this new copy or a refresh of existing content?

---

Related Skills

• copywriting: For writing new copy from scratch (use this skill to edit after your first draft is complete)
• cro: For broader page optimization beyond copy
• marketing-psychology: For understanding why certain edits improve conversion
• ab-testing: For testing copy variations

---

When to Use Each Skill

---

Supporting file: evals/evals.json

{
  "skill_name": "copy-editing",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "prompt": "Edit this homepage copy for us: 'Welcome to CloudSync! We are very excited to offer you an innovative, cutting-edge platform that seamlessly integrates with your existing tools. Our powerful solution helps businesses of all sizes optimize their workflows and drive meaningful results. Get started today and experience the difference!'",
      "expected_output": "Should check for product-marketing.md first. Should apply the Seven Sweeps Framework systematically. Sweep 1 (Clarity): identify vague language ('optimize workflows,' 'drive meaningful results,' 'experience the difference'). Sweep 2 (Voice & Tone): flag 'Welcome to' as weak opening, 'we are very excited' as company-focused. Sweep 3 (So What): question what specific value is being offered. Sweep 4 (Prove It): note no proof points, stats, or evidence. Sweep 5 (Specificity): flag 'businesses of all sizes,' 'existing tools,' 'powerful solution' as generic. Sweep 6 (Heightened Emotion): assess emotional impact. Sweep 7 (Zero Risk): check for trust signals. Should provide a rewritten version addressing all issues.",
      "assertions": [
        "Checks for product-marketing.md",
        "Applies Seven Sweeps Framework",
        "Identifies vague language (Clarity sweep)",
        "Flags weak opening and company-focused language (Voice & Tone sweep)",
        "Questions missing value proposition (So What sweep)",
        "Notes missing proof points (Prove It sweep)",
        "Flags generic terms (Specificity sweep)",
        "Provides a rewritten version"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "prompt": "Quick edit on this CTA section: 'Ready to take your business to the next level? Our team of dedicated professionals is standing by to help you achieve your goals. Click here to learn more about how we can help you succeed.'",
      "expected_output": "Should apply the quick-pass editing checks. Should identify: 'take your business to the next level' (cliché), 'team of dedicated professionals' (filler), 'standing by' (passive), 'click here' (weak CTA), 'learn more' (vague action), 'help you succeed' (generic). Should apply word-level, sentence-level, and paragraph-level checks. Should rewrite with specific value prop, active voice, and strong action-oriented CTA. Should be concise since this was requested as a 'quick edit.'",
      "assertions": [
        "Identifies clichés and filler phrases",
        "Flags 'click here' and 'learn more' as weak",
        "Applies word-level and sentence-level checks",
        "Rewrites with specific value and strong CTA",
        "Uses active voice in rewrite",
        "Keeps response concise for a quick edit"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 3,
      "prompt": "edit this product description, it feels too long and wordy: 'Our comprehensive project management solution provides teams with a robust set of tools that enable them to efficiently plan, execute, and monitor their projects from start to finish. With our intuitive interface, powerful analytics dashboard, and seamless integration capabilities, you can ensure that every aspect of your project is managed with precision and care. Whether you're a small startup or a large enterprise, our platform scales to meet your unique needs and requirements, helping you deliver projects on time and within budget every single time.'",
      "expected_output": "Should trigger on casual phrasing. Should apply the Clarity and Specificity sweeps primarily. Should identify: redundancy ('plan, execute, and monitor' overlaps with 'from start to finish'), filler words ('comprehensive,' 'robust,' 'efficiently,' 'seamless,' 'unique'), hedge phrases ('ensuring every aspect,' 'with precision and care'), and generic claims ('scales to meet your needs,' 'on time and within budget every single time'). Should cut the copy significantly (probably by 50%+). Should provide a tighter rewrite that says the same thing in fewer, more specific words.",
      "assertions": [
        "Triggers on casual phrasing",
        "Identifies redundancy in the copy",
        "Identifies filler words and hedge phrases",
        "Identifies generic claims",
        "Cuts copy significantly (50%+ reduction)",
        "Provides tighter rewrite with specific language"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 4,
      "prompt": "Review this testimonial section and improve it: 'CloudSync is great! It really helped our company. The team was very responsive and the product works well. We would recommend it to anyone looking for a solution. - John S., CEO'",
      "expected_output": "Should apply the Prove It and Specificity sweeps. Should identify the testimonial as too vague to be persuasive ('great,' 'really helped,' 'works well,' 'anyone looking for a solution'). Should recommend replacing with specific results ('reduced project delivery time by 30%'), specific context ('team of 45 engineers'), and specific outcomes. Should suggest questions to ask the customer for a better testimonial. Should not fabricate specific numbers but should provide a template showing what a strong testimonial looks like.",
      "assertions": [
        "Applies Prove It and Specificity sweeps",
        "Identifies testimonial as too vague",
        "Recommends specific results and context",
        "Suggests questions to get better testimonial",
        "Does not fabricate specific numbers",
        "Provides template for strong testimonial"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 5,
      "prompt": "I need you to apply the 'So What' and 'Zero Risk' sweeps to this pricing page copy: 'Our Pro plan includes unlimited projects, advanced reporting, priority support, and custom integrations. Starting at $99/month.'",
      "expected_output": "Should apply specifically the So What and Zero Risk sweeps as requested. So What: for each feature, ask 'so what does this mean for the customer?' — unlimited projects (what does that enable?), advanced reporting (what decisions can they make?), priority support (what does that mean in practice? response time?), custom integrations (which ones? what workflow does it enable?). Zero Risk: identify missing trust signals — no guarantee, no trial mention, no social proof near pricing, no 'cancel anytime' assurance. Should provide rewritten copy addressing both sweeps.",
      "assertions": [
        "Applies So What sweep to each feature",
        "Translates features to customer benefits",
        "Applies Zero Risk sweep",
        "Identifies missing trust signals",
        "Suggests guarantee, trial, or cancel-anytime language",
        "Provides rewritten copy addressing both sweeps"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 6,
      "prompt": "Write fresh homepage copy for our new product. We're launching a CRM for real estate agents.",
      "expected_output": "Should recognize this is a copywriting-from-scratch task, not copy editing. Should defer to or cross-reference the copywriting skill, which handles writing new copy from scratch. Copy-editing is specifically for improving existing copy. Should make this distinction clear.",
      "assertions": [
        "Recognizes this as writing new copy, not editing existing copy",
        "References or defers to copywriting skill",
        "Explains that copy-editing is for improving existing copy",
        "Does not attempt to write full page copy from scratch"
      ],
      "files": []
    }
  ]
}

---

Supporting file: references/checklist.md

Copy Editing Checklist

Use this checklist alongside the Seven Sweeps Framework (see SKILL.md) as a final QA pass before delivering edited copy.

Before You Start

• Understand the goal of this copy
• Know the target audience
• Identify the desired action
• Read through once without editing

Clarity (Sweep 1)

• Every sentence is immediately understandable
• No jargon without explanation
• Pronouns have clear references
• No sentences trying to do too much

Voice & Tone (Sweep 2)

• Consistent formality level throughout
• Brand personality maintained
• No jarring shifts in mood
• Reads well aloud

So What (Sweep 3)

• Every feature connects to a benefit
• Claims answer "why should I care?"
• Benefits connect to real desires
• No impressive-but-empty statements

Prove It (Sweep 4)

• Claims are substantiated
• Social proof is specific and attributed
• Numbers and stats have sources
• No unearned superlatives

Specificity (Sweep 5)

• Vague words replaced with concrete ones
• Numbers and timeframes included
• Generic statements made specific
• Filler content removed

Heightened Emotion (Sweep 6)

• Copy evokes feeling, not just information
• Pain points feel real
• Aspirations feel achievable
• Emotion serves the message authentically

Zero Risk (Sweep 7)

• Objections addressed near CTA
• Trust signals present
• Next steps are crystal clear
• Risk reversals stated (guarantee, trial, etc.)

Final Checks

• No typos or grammatical errors
• Consistent formatting
• Links work (if applicable)
• Core message preserved through all edits

---

Supporting file: references/content-refresh.md

Content Refresh Editing

Copy editing isn't just for new content. Existing pages and posts decay over time — outdated stats, stale examples, drifted brand voice, and missed SEO opportunities. A content refresh applies the same editing rigor to content that's already published.

When to Refresh

• Traffic declining on a page that used to perform well
• Stats or data are more than 12 months old
• Product has changed — features, pricing, or positioning no longer match
• Competitors updated their version of the same content
• AI search visibility matters — outdated content gets cited less (see ai-seo skill)

Content Refresh Checklist

1. Freshness pass — Update all dates, stats, and examples. Replace "in 2024" with current data. Remove references to deprecated features or tools.
2. Accuracy pass — Verify all claims are still true. Check that linked resources still exist. Confirm pricing and feature descriptions match current state.
3. Voice pass — Does the tone match your current brand voice? Older content often reflects an earlier stage of the company.
4. SEO pass — Has search intent shifted for this topic? Are there new keywords or questions to address? Add "Last updated: [date]" prominently.
5. Proof pass — Can you add newer testimonials, case studies, or data points that didn't exist when this was first published?
6. Structure pass — Add comparison tables, FAQ sections, or other scannable formats that make the content easier to consume.

Refresh vs. Rewrite

Refresh Cadence

• Pricing and product pages: Every quarter, or when pricing/features change
• High-traffic blog posts: Every 6 months
• Comparison and alternatives pages: Every 3-6 months (competitors change fast)
• Evergreen guides: Annually, unless traffic drops sooner
• Low-traffic pages: Only when traffic data suggests an opportunity

---

Supporting file: references/plain-english-alternatives.md

Plain English Alternatives

Replace complex or pompous words with plain English alternatives.

Source: Plain English Campaign A-Z of Alternative Words (2001), Australian Government Style Manual (2024), plainlanguage.gov

---

Contents

• A
• B
• C
• D
• E
• F
• G-H
• I
• L-M
• N-O
• P
• R
• S
• T-U
• V-Z
• Phrases to Remove Entirely

A

---

B

---

C

---

D

---

E

---

F

---

G-H

---

I

---

L-M

---

N-O

---

P

---

R

---

S

---

T-U

---

V-Z

---

Phrases to Remove Entirely

These phrases often add nothing. Delete them:

• a total of
• absolutely
• actually
• all things being equal
• as a matter of fact
• at the end of the day
• at this moment in time
• basically
• currently (when "now" or nothing works)
• I am of the opinion that (use: I think)
• in due course (use: soon, or say when)
• in the final analysis
• it should be understood
• last but not least
• obviously
• of course
• quite
• really
• the fact of the matter is
• to all intents and purposes
• very