Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

copywriting(文案写作)

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。

copywriting 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,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 39,204。

总安装 1,448周安装 58GitHub Stars 33下载 469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
unknown

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

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。

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。

来源仓库内路径:skills/copywriting

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 https://github.com/mblode/agent-skills --skill copywriting;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

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

copywriting 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/mblode/agent-skills --skill copywriting。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

copywriting 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。

copywriting 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。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。

copywriting 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

copywriting 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,448 次,近一周安装 58 次,下载 469 次,GitHub 33 星。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。

copywriting 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

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。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 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。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 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
copywriting

文案写作 · 本页

1,44833需要联网未明确通过

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

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

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。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