/copy-editing

name: copy-editing
description: "When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content. Also use when the user mentions 'edit this copy,' 'review my copy,' 'copy feedback,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'make this better,' 'copy sweep,' 'tighten this up,' 'this reads awkwardly,' 'clean up this text,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging,' 'refresh this content,' 'update this page,' 'this content is outdated,' or 'content audit.' Use this when the user already has copy and wants it improved or refreshed rather than rewritten from scratch. For writing new copy, see copywriting."
metadata:
  version: 2.0.0

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:**

| 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:**

• 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 ex