marketing-skill/skills/copy-editing/SKILL.md
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,' or 'copy sweep.' This skill provides a systematic approach to editing marketing copy through multiple focused passes.
npx skillsauth add alirezarezvani/claude-skills copy-editingInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
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.
Check for product marketing context first:
If .claude/product-marketing-context.md exists, 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:
Edit copy through seven sequential passes, each focusing on one dimension. After each sweep, loop back to check previous sweeps aren't compromised.
Focus: Can the reader understand what you're saying?
What to check:
Common clarity killers:
Process:
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?
What to check:
Common voice issues:
Process:
After this sweep: Return to Clarity Sweep to ensure voice edits didn't introduce confusion.
Focus: Does every claim answer "why should I care?"
What to check:
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:
Process:
After this sweep: Return to Voice and Tone, then Clarity.
Focus: Is every claim supported with evidence?
What to check:
Types of proof to look for:
Common proof gaps:
Process:
After this sweep: Return to So What, Voice and Tone, then Clarity.
Focus: Is the copy concrete enough to be compelling?
What to check:
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:
Process:
After this sweep: Return to Prove It, So What, Voice and Tone, then Clarity.
Focus: Does the copy make the reader feel something?
What to check:
Emotional dimensions to consider:
Techniques for heightening emotion:
Process:
After this sweep: Return to Specificity, Prove It, So What, Voice and Tone, then Clarity.
Focus: Have we removed every barrier to action?
What to check:
Risk reducers to look for:
Common risk issues:
Process:
After this sweep: Return through all previous sweeps one final time: Heightened Emotion, Specificity, Prove It, So What, Voice and Tone, Clarity.
Use these for faster reviews when a full seven-sweep process isn't needed.
Cut these words:
Replace these:
| Weak | Strong | |------|--------| | Utilize | Use | | Implement | Set up | | Leverage | Use | | Facilitate | Help | | Innovative | New | | Robust | Strong | | Seamless | Smooth | | Cutting-edge | New/Modern |
Watch for:
Symptom: List of what the product does without why it matters Fix: Add "which means..." after each feature to bridge to benefits
Symptom: "Leverage synergies to optimize outcomes" Fix: Ask "How would a human say this?" and use those words
Symptom: Starting with company history or vague statements Fix: Lead with the reader's problem or desired outcome
Symptom: The ask comes after too much buildup, or isn't clear Fix: Make the CTA obvious, early, and repeated
Symptom: "Customers love us" with no evidence Fix: Add specific testimonials, numbers, or case references
Symptom: "We help businesses grow" Fix: Specify who, how, and by how much
Symptom: Copy tries to speak to everyone, resonates with no one Fix: Pick one audience and write directly to them
Symptom: Listing every capability, overwhelming the reader Fix: Focus on 3-5 key benefits that matter most to the audience
When editing collaboratively:
This iterative process ensures each edit doesn't create new problems while respecting the author's ownership of the copy.
| 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 |
Surface these issues WITHOUT being asked when you notice them in context:
| When you ask for... | You get... | |---------------------|------------| | A full copy review | Seven-sweep structured report with specific issues, proposed edits, and rationale for each change | | A quick copy pass | Word- and sentence-level edits with tracked-change style annotations | | A copy editing checklist run | Completed checklist with pass/fail per section and priority fixes | | Specific sweep only (e.g., Clarity) | Focused report for that sweep with before/after examples | | Final polish | Clean edited version of the copy with a summary of all changes made |
All output follows the structured communication standard:
Deliver findings sweep-by-sweep. Don't dump all issues at once. Prioritize by conversion impact, not writing preference.
tools
Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists.
tools
Use when planning, funding, scoping, or synthesizing enterprise research across workstreams — clinical study design, R&D program finance, market sizing/surveys, or product/user research. Triggers on "design this clinical study", "what sample size", "R&D budget", "burn rate", "capitalize or expense", "TAM SAM SOM", "market sizing", "survey design", "segment the market", "plan user interviews", "usability test", "synthesize research insights". Forks context to route to one of four Research-Operations sub-skills (clinical-research, research-finance, market-research, product-research) and returns a digest. Distinct from ra-qm-team (regulatory submission), finance (corporate close/valuation), research/grants (funding discovery), product-team (persona/journey/live experiments), and marketing-skill (campaign analytics).
development
Use when managing the money for an internal R&D program or portfolio — building a multi-period program budget with the F&A (indirect) split, tracking burn rate and runway against value-inflection milestones, or routing R&D cost items to a capitalize-vs-expense determination. Every budget output surfaces its assumptions block; capitalize-vs-expense is decision-support only and routes to a named finance owner — it never books an entry or decides accounting treatment. Distinct from finance/financial-analysis (corporate DCF, close, valuation) and research/grants (funding discovery — this manages money already won).
development
Use when planning and synthesizing product/user research as a method-and-repository discipline — selecting the right method for the goal (generative interviews vs usability test vs concept test vs validation), computing method-based saturation/sample size with an explicit confidence level, or synthesizing coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes. Never fabricates user insight; an insight requires recurrence across independent participants. Distinct from product-team/ux-researcher-designer (persona/journey artifacts), product-discovery (discovery-sprint planning), and experiment-designer (live A/B) — this is the research-ops method + insight-repository layer.