Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

copywriting文案写作

Agent Skill

用于辅助文档、README、Markdown、说明文和内容稿件的整理与改写。它适合让 Agent 提炼结构、补齐章节、统一术语、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档。使用时应保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不要把未确认的信息写成确定结论;涉及对外文案时,还需要控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。

总安装

1,448

周安装

58

GitHub Stars

33

下载量

469
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

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:copywriting(文案写作)
来源仓库:https://github.com/mblode/agent-skills
仓库路径:skills/copywriting
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/mblode/agent-skills --skill copywriting
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。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/mblode/agent-skills --skill copywriting

简介

用于辅助文档、README 和内容稿件的整理与改写,支持结构提炼。

  • 适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要统一术语或检查链接时使用。
  • 通过 GitHub 安装,使用 npx skills add 命令添加指定仓库的 skill。
  • 应保留项目已有事实,避免把未确认信息写成确定结论。
  • copywriting 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Copywriting

Two modes: Write (new copy from scratch) and Edit (audit and rewrite existing copy). Auto-detect which applies — if copy already exists, default to Edit. Confirm with the user if ambiguous.

Reference files

FileRead when
references/frameworks.mdStep 4 (writing) — choosing a framework; Step 3 (editing) — auditing against persuasion frameworks
references/sweeps.mdStep 5 (editing) — the seven line-level sweeps
references/page-types.mdStep 3 (writing) — structure and copy norms by page type
references/word-lists.mdStep 4 (editing) — Tier 1/2/3 AI vocabulary to flag and replace
references/ai-patterns.mdStep 4 (editing) — structural and sentence-level AI patterns

Mode A — Writing new copy

Writing progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Gather context
- [ ] Step 2: Lock the brief (hard gate)
- [ ] Step 3: Discover brand voice
- [ ] Step 4: Choose framework and load references
- [ ] Step 5: Write 2–3 alternatives
- [ ] Step 6: Recommend and explain

Step 1 — Gather context

Ask these four questions before writing a single word. Do not proceed until all four are answered.

  1. Page purpose — What is the one action this page must drive? (e.g. sign up, book a demo, download)
  2. Audience — Who is the specific reader? Job title, pain, what they've already tried.
  3. Product — What does this product do, and what is the concrete outcome for the user?
  4. Traffic source — Where is the reader coming from? (cold ad, warm email, organic search, referral)

Traffic source determines temperature. Cold traffic needs more Why. Warm traffic can lead with How or What.

Step 2 — Lock the brief (hard gate)

Before writing, state the brief back to the user and get explicit confirmation:

Brief:
- Page: [page type]
- Goal: [single action]
- Reader: [specific audience]
- Core outcome: [what changes for the reader]
- Tone: [inferred from brand voice or user-stated]
- Traffic temperature: [cold / warm / hot]

Confirm this is correct before I write.

Do not write copy until the user confirms. If they push back on any point, update the brief and re-confirm.

Step 3 — Discover brand voice

Look for brand voice signals before inventing one:

  • Read existing copy files, README headers, or marketing pages if accessible
  • Ask: "Do you have brand guidelines, a tone-of-voice doc, or existing copy I should match?"
  • If nothing exists, infer from the product and audience: B2B SaaS defaults to direct and confident; consumer apps can be warmer; developer tools lean terse and honest

Note the inferred voice in the brief. Never default to generic corporate warmth.

Step 4 — Choose framework and load references

Load references/frameworks.md and references/page-types.md.

Choose the primary framework for this copy based on the brief:

SituationLead framework
Cold traffic, unfamiliar productWhy/How/What (Simon Sinek)
Feature-heavy productBenefit Not Feature
High-trust audience, low awarenessShow Don't Tell
Transactional page, known intentCTA Clarity
Long-form sales pageProblem → Agitate → Solution (PAS)

You can layer frameworks. Why/How/What almost always applies to hero copy regardless of the primary choice.

Step 5 — Write 2–3 alternatives

Write exactly 2–3 distinct alternatives. Each must:

  • Apply the chosen framework visibly
  • Lead with Why, not What
  • Use no banned words (see below)
  • Include a headline, subhead, and at least one CTA per alternative
  • Be structurally different — not the same idea with different adjectives

Label each: Option A, Option B, Option C.

Step 6 — Recommend and explain

Pick one option and state clearly which and why in one sentence. Give the user a specific edit note for each alternative they did not pick — what it would take to make it stronger.


Mode B — Editing existing copy

Editing progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Read all copy-bearing files
- [ ] Step 2: Set the north star
- [ ] Step 3: Audit against persuasion frameworks
- [ ] Step 4: Remove AI writing patterns
- [ ] Step 5: Run seven sweeps
- [ ] Step 6: Flag weakest elements with labels
- [ ] Step 7: Rewrite flagged sections
- [ ] Step 8: Output before/after diff

Step 1 — Read all copy-bearing files

Scan for all reader-facing text: README headers, landing page components, hero text, CTAs, product descriptions, feature lists, onboarding strings, meta descriptions, email subjects.

Ask which files to target if unclear. Never audit copy you haven't read in full context.

Step 2 — Set the north star

Write one sentence before auditing anything: "[User] can now [do X] without [old pain]."

Every flagged line and rewrite must serve this sentence. If you cannot write it confidently, ask the user — the copy will be unfixable until the value proposition is clear.

Step 3 — Audit against persuasion frameworks

Load references/frameworks.md. Check every major copy block against each framework. Mark candidates for flagging. Do not flag everything — identify the 3–7 highest-impact problems only.

Step 4 — Remove AI writing patterns

Load references/word-lists.md and references/ai-patterns.md.

Scan for AI-isms and flag each with [AI-ISM] and the specific pattern type:

  • Tier 1 words — always flag and replace (delve, leverage, robust, seamless, paradigm, holistic, etc.)
  • Tier 2 clusters — flag when 2+ appear in the same paragraph (harness, empower, streamline, elevate, etc.)
  • Structural patterns — formulaic openings, chatbot artefacts, "let's" transitions, significance inflation, copula avoidance

Skip this step if the user asked specifically for persuasion-only editing. Run this step first (before sweeps) if the user asked specifically for AI pattern removal.

Step 5 — Run seven sweeps

Load references/sweeps.md and run all seven sweeps in order. Do not skip sweeps because the copy "looks fine" — each sweep targets a distinct failure mode.

Step 6 — Flag weakest elements

Attach a label inline to every weak line. Use exactly these labels:

LabelMeaning
[WHAT-NOT-WHY]Leads with the product or feature, not the user's motivation
[FEATURE-NOT-BENEFIT]Describes what the product has, not what changes for the user
[TELL-NOT-SHOW]Adjective claim without proof ("powerful", "seamless", "easy")
[VAGUE]Generic — could describe any product in this category
[PASSIVE]Subject is acted upon instead of acting
[DEAD-WEIGHT]Adds no information not already conveyed; safe to cut
[JARGON]Technical term that obscures meaning for a non-expert reader
[NO-PROOF]Claim that needs a number, example, or testimonial to be credible
[WEAK-CTA]CTA describes the action, not the outcome
[AI-ISM]AI writing pattern — Tier 1 word, Tier 2 cluster, or structural tell

Flag the 3–7 weakest elements. Prioritise by impact on conversion or comprehension.

Step 7 — Rewrite flagged sections

Rewrite each flagged block:

  • Lead with Why (the user's problem or desire), not What (the product)
  • Name the concrete outcome, not the capability
  • Replace adjectives with proof: instead of "powerful analytics", write "see which pages kill signups"
  • Make CTAs outcome-specific: "Start syncing" beats "Get started"
  • Every sentence must add new information or it gets cut
  • Never lengthen a CTA in the name of clarity
  • When replacing AI-isms, rewrite the sentence — don't just swap the flagged word for a synonym

Step 8 — Output before/after diff

## Copy Audit — [file or component name]

**North star:** [one-sentence value prop]

---

### [Section name]

**Before:**
> [original text]

**Issues:** `[LABEL]`, `[LABEL]`

**After:**
> [rewritten text]

**Why:** [one sentence explaining the change]

---

### Summary
- N issues flagged across N sections
- Top pattern: [most common label]
- Confidence: [high / medium — note if copy context was limited]

Banned words

Never write these — flag immediately in edit mode. Full replacement list in references/word-lists.md.

delve, leverage (verb), robust, seamless, holistic, paradigm, game-changing, cutting-edge, innovative, synergy, revolutionary, effortless, world-class, powerful

Also ban "simple" used as a claim ("our simple onboarding") — never earned upfront, always reads as a promise not yet kept.


Gotchas

  • Do not write before the brief is confirmed. Skipping Step 2 produces copy that sounds good but serves the wrong goal.
  • Do not flag every line in edit mode. Over-flagging dilutes attention and makes the audit useless. 3–7 issues, prioritised by impact.
  • Do not audit copy you haven't read in context. A vague-looking line may be intentional contrast with adjacent copy.
  • Do not impose locale changes. Don't switch British to American spelling (or vice versa) unless the project already uses the target locale — check existing copy first.
  • Do not lengthen CTAs. "Sync your data across every device instantly" is worse than "Start syncing".
  • If the product name appears in the first hero sentence, it's almost always [WHAT-NOT-WHY].
  • "Simple", "easy", "powerful", and "seamless" are automatic [TELL-NOT-SHOW] — they are never earned upfront.
  • Do not generate copy with an unconfirmed value proposition. If you cannot write the north star sentence, stop and ask.
  • CTAs often live in components, not markdown. Ask the user where CTAs live if not obvious from the files.
  • Traffic temperature changes the entire strategy. Cold traffic from a paid ad needs far more Why than warm traffic from a referral link. Ask if unsure.
  • Brand voice mismatch is the fastest way to make good copy feel wrong. Always check for existing copy before inventing a tone.

Skill handoffs

WhenRun
After rewrite, audit prose qualitydocs-writing
To optimise meta descriptions and page titlesoptimise-seo
To review the full UI including copy in contextui-audit

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

34.81%
按下载量换算163

Claude

33.06%
按下载量换算155

Cursor

18.83%
按下载量换算88

Gemini CLI

9.68%
按下载量换算45

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

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。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills