About
When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content.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up this text,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging,' 'refresh this content,' 'update this page,' 'this content is outdated,' or 'content audit.'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 imp
name: copy-editing description: "When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content.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up this text,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging,' 'refresh this content,' 'update this page,' 'this content is outdated,' or 'content audit.'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:
- Read through quickly, highlighting unclear parts
- Don't correct yet—just note problem areas
- After marking issues, recommend specific edits
- 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:
- Read aloud to hear inconsistencies
- Mark where tone shifts unexpectedly
- Recommend edits that smooth transitions
- 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:
- Read each claim and literally ask "so what?"
- Highlight claims missing the answer
- Add the benefit bridge or deeper meaning
- 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:
- Identify every claim that needs proof
- Check if proof exists nearby
- Flag unsupp
