borghei/copy-editing
> Systematic copy editing through focused passes (the Seven Sweeps Framework) covering clarity, voice, proof, specificity, and friction removal. Use when editing marketing copy, reviewing drafts, polishing content, or proofreading.
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills --skill copy-editingSystematic copy improvement through focused editorial passes that enhance clarity, voice, proof, and conversion impact.
copy editing, editorial review, copy feedback, proofreading, content polishing, copy sweep, editorial standards, style consistency, grammar check, fact-checking, clarity editing, voice consistency, benefit framing, proof validation, specificity, conversion copy editing, marketing copy review, copy quality
Before editing, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.
Edit through seven sequential passes. Each focuses on one dimension. After each sweep, verify previous sweeps are not compromised.
Focus: Can the reader understand what you are saying on the first read?
What to check:
Clarity killers to fix:
| Problem | Fix |
|---------|-----|
| Sentence over 30 words | Split into two sentences |
| Abstract language | Replace with concrete example |
| Buried main point | Move to beginning of paragraph |
| Three-clause sentence | Simplify to one or two clauses |
| Undefined acronym | Spell out on first use |
After this sweep: Confirm the "Rule of One" (one idea per section) and "You Rule" (copy speaks to the reader as "you") are intact.
Focus: Does the copy sound consistent throughout?
What to check:
Voice consistency indicators:
| Consistent | Inconsistent |
|-----------|-------------|
| Same level of contractions throughout | Contractions in some sections, full forms in others |
| Humor style maintained | Random joke in otherwise serious copy |
| Same sentence structure patterns | Short punchy intro, corporate middle, casual close |
| Consistent use of "you" | Switching between "you," "users," "customers," "one" |
After this sweep: Return to Sweep 1 to ensure voice edits did not introduce confusion.
Focus: Does every claim answer "why should I care?"
The So What test: For every statement, ask "So what?" If the copy does not answer with a deeper benefit, it needs work.
| Before (features only) | After (feature + benefit) |
|------------------------|--------------------------|
| "Our platform uses AI-powered analytics" | "Our AI analytics surface insights you would miss manually — so you make better decisions in half the time" |
| "SOC 2 Type II certified" | "SOC 2 certified — your security team approves us in days, not months" |
| "Real-time dashboard" | "See exactly what is happening right now, not what happened last week" |
After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 2 and 1.
Focus: Is every claim backed with evidence?
Types of proof to verify:
| Proof Type | Strength | Example |
|-----------|----------|---------|
| Named testimonial | Strong | "Sarah Chen, VP Marketing at Stripe: 'Reduced our setup time by 60%'" |
| Specific statistic | Strong | "2,847 teams use [Product] daily" |
| Case study reference | Strong | "See how Linear reduced churn by 23% in 90 days" |
| Third-party validation | Strong | "Named a Leader in Gartner's Magic Quadrant 2025" |
| Customer logos | Medium | Recognizable brand logos with permission |
| Generic claim | Weak — flag it | "Customers love us," "Industry-leading" |
Common proof gaps to flag:
After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 3, 2, and 1.
Focus: Is the copy concrete enough to be compelling?
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 reporting time from 4 hours to 15 minutes" |
| "Great support" | "Average response time: 2 hours" |
| "Easy to use" | "Set up in 10 minutes, no code required" |
| "Affordable" | "Starting at $29/month" |
| "Scalable" | "Handles 10,000 to 10 million records without slowdown" |
Rule: If a claim cannot be made specific, it is probably filler. Cut it or replace it with something verifiable.
After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 4, 3, 2, and 1.
Focus: Does the copy make the reader feel something?
Emotional dimensions to check:
| Emotion | Where to Use | Technique |
|---------|-------------|-----------|
| Pain/frustration | Problem section | Paint the "before" state vividly |
| Relief | Solution section | Show the contrast with current pain |
| Fear of missing out | Social proof | "Teams like yours already use..." |
| Pride | Aspiration section | "Be the team that..." |
| Confidence | CTA area | "Join 2,847 teams who already..." |
| Urgency | Near CTA | Only if genuine (real deadline, limited spots) |
Emotion techniques:
After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1.
Focus: Have we removed every barrier to action?
Friction checklist near CTAs:
After this sweep: Return through all previous sweeps one final time.
Always cut:
very, really, extremely, incredibly, quite, rather, somewhat, just, actually, basically, essentially, literally (unless literal), in order to (use "to"), the fact that, it should be noted that, it is important to
Always replace:
| Weak | Strong |
|------|--------|
| Utilize | Use |
| Implement | Set up, build, create |
| Leverage | Use, apply |
| Facilitate | Help, enable |
| Innovative | New, original, first-of-its-kind |
| Robust | Strong, thorough, [be specific] |
| Seamless | Smooth, easy, [be specific] |
| Cutting-edge | Modern, latest, [be specific] |
| Synergy | [Delete or be specific about the collaboration] |
| Paradigm | [Delete or say what actually changed] |
| Problem | Symptom | Fix |
|---------|---------|-----|
| Wall of features | List of what it does, no why | Add "which means..." after each feature |
| Corporate speak | "Leverage synergies to optimize outcomes" | Ask "How would a human say this?" |
| Weak opening | Starts with company history or vague statement | Lead with reader's problem or desired outcome |
| Buried CTA | Ask comes after too much buildup | Make CTA obvious, early, and repeated |
| No proof | "Customers love us" with no evidence | Add specific testimonials, numbers, case references |
| Generic claims | "We help businesses grow" | Specify who, how, and by how much |
| Mixed audiences | Tries to speak to everyone | Pick one audience per page/section |
| Feature overload | Every capability listed | Focus on 3-5 benefits that matter most |
| Passive voice | "Reports are generated by the system" | "The system generates reports" |
| Weasel words | "Up to 50% improvement" | State the median or typical result with context |
| Decision | Option A | Option B | How to Decide |
|----------|----------|----------|---------------|
| Oxford comma | Yes | No | Pick one, document it, enforce it |
| Heading capitalization | Sentence case | Title Case | Sentence case is modern standard |
| "Login" vs "Log in" | One word (noun) | Two words (verb) | "Log in" as verb, "Login" as noun/adjective |
| "Setup" vs "Set up" | One word (noun) | Two words (verb) | Same pattern as login |
| Ampersand vs "and" | & | and | "and" in prose, "&" only in headings if brand standard |
10. Track recurring issues — If the same problems appear across multiple pieces, the issue is systemic. Flag it as a process improvement, not just an edit.
| Problem | Likely Cause | Fix |
|---------|-------------|-----|
| Same issues appear across multiple pieces from the same writer | Systemic writing habit, not a one-off error | Create a writer-specific checklist of recurring issues; address in style guide or training, not just per-piece edits |
| Copy loses its original voice after editing | Editor over-corrected; replaced author voice with editor's style | Preserve author voice — enhance clarity and impact without rewriting personality. Read original aloud before editing |
| Edits introduce new inconsistencies | Previous sweeps not re-checked after later sweeps modified content | Always re-run earlier sweeps after making changes — Sweep 7 edits can break Sweep 1 clarity |
| CTA buried or ineffective despite multiple edit passes | CTA was not the focus of any sweep — copy editing focused on prose quality | Prioritize CTA area first (Sweep 7: Zero Risk) before polishing earlier sections |
| Fact-checking reveals unverifiable claims | Writer invented statistics or used outdated data | Flag and return to writer — editor cannot invent evidence. Document all unverifiable claims explicitly |
| Style inconsistencies between sections | Multiple writers contributed or copy was assembled from different drafts | Run style consistency checklist end-to-end; standardize contractions, heading case, number format, and punctuation |
In scope:
Out of scope:
Known limitations:
# Score content readability with detailed metrics
python scripts/readability_scorer.py article.md --json
# Detect AI patterns that need humanization before editing
python scripts/ai_pattern_detector.py article.md --verbose
# Check style consistency across multiple documents
python scripts/style_checker.py --files doc1.md doc2.md doc3.md --json
Take borghei/copy-editing from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.