copy-editing

作成者: coreyhaines31

ユーザーが既存のマーケティングコピーを編集、レビュー、改善したい場合、または古くなったコンテンツをリフレッシュしたい場合。また、ユーザーが「このコピーを編集して」「コピーをレビューして」「コピーのフィードバック」「校正」「これを磨いて」「これを良くして」「コピーの見直し」「これを引き締めて」「この読みにくい部分」「このテキストをきれいにして」「言葉遣いが多すぎる」「メッセージをシャープにして」「このコンテンツをリフレッシュして」「このページを更新して」「このコンテンツは古い」「コンテンツ監査」と言及した場合にも使用します。ユーザーがすでにコピーを持っており、それを...

npx skills add https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills --skill copy-editing

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:

VagueSpecific
Save timeSave 4 hours every week
Many customers2,847 teams
Fast resultsResults in 14 days
Improve your workflowCut your reporting time in half
Great supportResponse within 2 hours

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

ScoreMeaning
9-10Publish-ready. No meaningful improvements.
7-8Strong. Minor tweaks only.
5-6Functional but has clear gaps. Needs another pass.
3-4Significant issues. Major revision needed.
1-2Fundamentally broken. Rethink approach.

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:

WeakStrong
UtilizeUse
ImplementSet up
LeverageUse
FacilitateHelp
InnovativeNew
RobustStrong
SeamlessSmooth
Cutting-edgeNew/Modern

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


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

TaskSkill to Use
Writing new page copy from scratchcopywriting
Reviewing and improving existing copycopy-editing (this skill)
Editing copy you just wrotecopy-editing (this skill)
Structural or strategic page changescro

coreyhaines31のその他のスキル

copywriting
coreyhaines31
ユーザーがホームページ、ランディングページ、料金ページ、機能ページ、概要ページ、製品ページなど、あらゆるページ向けのマーケティングコピーを作成、書き直し、または改善したい場合に使用します。また、ユーザーが「コピーを書いて」「このコピーを改善して」「このページを書き直して」「マーケティングコピー」「見出しのヘルプ」「CTAコピー」「バリュープロポジション」「タグライン」「サブ見出し」「ヒーローセクションのコピー」「アバブザフォールド」「このコピーは弱い」「もっと魅力的にして」「製品を説明するのを手伝って」と言った場合にも使用します。これを使用してください...
marketingcreativecommunication
seo-audit
coreyhaines31
ユーザーが自社サイトのSEO問題を監査、レビュー、診断したい場合に使用します。また、ユーザーが「SEO監査」「テクニカルSEO」「なぜランキングに入らないのか」「SEO問題」「オンページSEO」「メタタグレビュー」「SEOヘルスチェック」「トラフィックが落ちた」「ランキングを失った」「Googleに表示されない」「サイトがランキングに入らない」「Googleアップデートの影響を受けた」「ページ速度」「Core Web Vitals」「クロールエラー」「インデックス問題」に言及した場合も使用します。ユーザーが「SEOが悪い」や「助けて…」といった曖昧な発言をした場合でも使用します。
marketingresearchdata-analysis
marketing-psychology
coreyhaines31
ユーザーがマーケティングに心理学の原理、メンタルモデル、行動科学を適用したい場合に使用します。また、ユーザーが「心理学」「メンタルモデル」「認知バイアス」「説得」「行動科学」「なぜ人は買うのか」「意思決定」「消費者行動」「アンカリング」「社会的証明」「希少性」「損失回避」「フレーミング」「ナッジ」に言及した場合も使用します。マーケティングの文脈で人々がどのように考え、意思決定を行うかを理解したり活用したい場合に使用します。適用する際には…
marketingresearch
content-strategy
coreyhaines31
ユーザーがコンテンツ戦略を計画したい、作成するコンテンツを決めたい、またはカバーすべきトピックを考えたい場合に使用します。また、ユーザーが「コンテンツ戦略」「何を書くべきか」「コンテンツアイデア」「ブログ戦略」「トピッククラスター」「コンテンツ計画」「編集カレンダー」「コンテンツマーケティング」「コンテンツロードマップ」「どんなコンテンツを作るべきか」「ブログトピック」「コンテンツピラー」「何を書けばいいかわからない」と述べた場合にも使用します。誰かが作成するコンテンツを決めるのに助けが必要なときは、常にこれを使用してください。
marketingresearchcreative
ai-seo
coreyhaines31
ユーザーがAI検索エンジン向けにコンテンツを最適化したい、LLMに引用されたい、またはAI生成の回答に表示されたい場合に使用します。また、ユーザーが「AI SEO」「AEO」「GEO」「LLMO」「アンサーエンジン最適化」「生成エンジン最適化」「LLM最適化」「AI Overviews」「ChatGPT向け最適化」「Perplexity向け最適化」「AI引用」「AI可視性」「ゼロクリック検索」「AI回答に表示される方法」「LLMでの言及」「Claude/Gemini向け最適化」に言及した場合にも使用します。誰かが…するときは常にこれを使用してください。
marketingresearch
programmatic-seo
coreyhaines31
ユーザーがテンプレートとデータを使用してSEO駆動のページを大規模に作成したい場合。また、ユーザーが「プログラムSEO」「テンプレートページ」「大規模なページ」「ディレクトリページ」「ロケーションページ」「[キーワード] + [都市] ページ」「比較ページ」「統合ページ」「SEOのための多数のページ作成」「pSEO」「100ページ生成」「データ駆動ページ」「テンプレート化されたランディングページ」に言及した場合にも使用します。異なるキーワードやロケーションをターゲットにした類似ページを多数作成したい場合に、これを利用してください。例えば...
marketingdata-analysisweb-scraping
marketing-ideas
coreyhaines31
ユーザーがSaaSやソフトウェア製品のマーケティングアイデア、インスピレーション、戦略を必要とする場合。また、ユーザーが「マーケティングアイデア」「成長アイデア」「マーケティング方法」「マーケティング戦略」「マーケティング戦術」「プロモーション方法」「成長のためのアイデア」「他に試せること」「これをどうマーケティングすればいいかわからない」「マーケティングのブレインストーミング」「どのマーケティングをすべきか」と尋ねた場合にも使用します。誰かが行き詰まっていたり、成長のためのインスピレーションを求めているときの出発点として活用してください。具体的な...
marketing
cro
coreyhaines31
ユーザーがホームページ、ランディングページ、価格ページ、機能ページ、リード獲得フォーム、お問い合わせフォームなど、あらゆるマーケティングページやフォームの最適化、改善、コンバージョン向上を望む場合。また、ユーザーが「CRO」「コンバージョン率最適化」「このページはコンバージョンしていない」「コンバージョンを改善したい」「このページが機能しない理由」「ランディングページがひどい」「フォーム離脱」「誰もコンバージョンしていない」「コンバージョン率が低い」「このページは改善が必要」と言った場合も使用します。ユーザーが...の場合でも使用します。
marketingdata-analysisresearch