Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

copy-editing(复制编辑)

copy-editing 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

copy-editing 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证为 MIT,暂无第三方扫描结果,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 9,310。

总安装 14,511周安装 728GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 6,435核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:copy-editing(复制编辑)
来源仓库:https://github.com/clawdbot/skills
仓库路径:skills/copy-editing
安装命令:
npx skills add clawdbot/skills --skill "copy-editing"
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

AgentSkills.tonpx skills
npx skills add clawdbot/skills --skill "copy-editing"

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

copy-editing 用于查找、检索和筛选与复制编辑相关的信息,适合在内容优化和语言润色场景中使用。适用于需要获取文案优化技巧、风格指南或本地化注意事项等内容。

通过 npx skills add clawdbot/skills --skill "copy-editing" 命令安装,兼容 Codex、Claude 等宿主平台。使用前请确认是否会修改原始文本或生成对外发布内容,注意语气控制。

适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/copy-editing

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add clawdbot/skills --skill "copy-editing";命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

copy-editing 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add clawdbot/skills --skill "copy-editing"。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

copy-editing 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

copy-editing 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

copy-editing 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

copy-editing 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 14,511 次,近一周安装 728 次,下载 6,435 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

copy-editing 安全吗?

没有查到第三方扫描结果,安全性无法从公开资料判断,安装前请自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 没有第三方扫描结果,安全性只能靠自己读源码判断。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 要求有安全扫描结论才肯安装的团队。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
copy-editing

复制编辑 · 本页

14,511—只读MIT未收录

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

name
copy-editing
description
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.
license
MIT
metadata
version
1.0.0
author
Alireza Rezvani
category
marketing
updated
2026-03-06

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 .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:

  • 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.


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

Before You Start

  • [ ] Understand the goal of this copy
  • [ ] Know the target audience
  • [ ] Identify the desired action
  • [ ] Read through once without editing

Clarity (Sweep 1)

  • [ ] Every sentence is immediately understandable
  • [ ] No jargon without explanation
  • [ ] Pronouns have clear references
  • [ ] No sentences trying to do too much

Voice & Tone (Sweep 2)

  • [ ] Consistent formality level throughout
  • [ ] Brand personality maintained
  • [ ] No jarring shifts in mood
  • [ ] Reads well aloud

So What (Sweep 3)

  • [ ] Every feature connects to a benefit
  • [ ] Claims answer "why should I care?"
  • [ ] Benefits connect to real desires
  • [ ] No impressive-but-empty statements

Prove It (Sweep 4)

  • [ ] Claims are substantiated
  • [ ] Social proof is specific and attributed
  • [ ] Numbers and stats have sources
  • [ ] No unearned superlatives

Specificity (Sweep 5)

  • [ ] Vague words replaced with concrete ones
  • [ ] Numbers and timeframes included
  • [ ] Generic statements made specific
  • [ ] Filler content removed

Heightened Emotion (Sweep 6)

  • [ ] Copy evokes feeling, not just information
  • [ ] Pain points feel real
  • [ ] Aspirations feel achievable
  • [ ] Emotion serves the message authentically

Zero Risk (Sweep 7)

  • [ ] Objections addressed near CTA
  • [ ] Trust signals present
  • [ ] Next steps are crystal clear
  • [ ] Risk reversals stated (guarantee, trial, etc.)

Final Checks

  • [ ] No typos or grammatical errors
  • [ ] Consistent formatting
  • [ ] Links work (if applicable)
  • [ ] Core message preserved through all edits

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


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?

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 changespage-cro

Proactive Triggers

Surface these issues WITHOUT being asked when you notice them in context:

  • Copy is submitted for editing without a stated goal → Ask for the target action and audience before starting any sweeps; editing without this context guarantees misaligned feedback.
  • Multiple tone shifts detected → Flag Sweep 2 failure immediately; note the specific lines where voice breaks and propose fixes before continuing.
  • Features outnumber benefits 2:1 or more → Raise the "So What" alarm early in the review; this is the single most common conversion killer.
  • Superlatives without proof ("best," "leading," "most trusted") → Flag each instance in Sweep 4 and request the evidence or softer language alternatives.
  • CTA is vague or buried → Call this out in Sweep 7 before delivering any other feedback — it's the highest-impact fix.

Output Artifacts

When you ask for...You get...
A full copy reviewSeven-sweep structured report with specific issues, proposed edits, and rationale for each change
A quick copy passWord- and sentence-level edits with tracked-change style annotations
A copy editing checklist runCompleted 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 polishClean edited version of the copy with a summary of all changes made

Communication

All output follows the structured communication standard:

  • Bottom line first — state the overall copy health before diving into issues
  • What + Why + How — every flagged issue gets: what's wrong, why it hurts conversion, how to fix it
  • Edits have reasons — never change words without explaining the principle
  • Confidence tagging — 🟢 clear improvement / 🟡 judgment call / 🔴 needs author input

Deliver findings sweep-by-sweep. Don't dump all issues at once. Prioritize by conversion impact, not writing preference.


Related Skills

  • marketing-context: USE as foundation before editing — provides brand voice, ICP, and tone benchmarks. NOT a substitute for reading the copy itself.
  • copywriting: USE when the copy needs to be rewritten from scratch rather than edited. NOT for polishing existing drafts.
  • content-strategy: USE when the problem is what to say, not how to say it. NOT for line-level improvements.
  • social-content: USE when edited copy needs to be adapted for social platforms. NOT for page-level editing.
  • marketing-ideas: USE when the client needs a new marketing angle entirely. NOT for editorial improvement.
  • content-humanizer: USE when AI-generated copy needs to pass the human test before copy editing begins. NOT for structural review.
  • ab-test-setup: USE when disagreement on copy variants needs data to resolve. NOT for the editing process itself.

平台分布

windsurf

31.75%
按下载量换算2,043

OpenCode

23.79%
按下载量换算1,531

Codex

18.03%
按下载量换算1,160

clawdbot

13.52%
按下载量换算870

trae

7.55%
按下载量换算486

Cursor

3.77%
按下载量换算243

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills