refactor(skills): move copy-editing catalogs to references

Keep the decision steps in SKILL.md and move catalogs, examples, and checklists verbatim to references/ to reduce the context cost of loading the skill. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-10-01 11:01:55 +02:00
1 parent d841ce6ead
commit c8b00584d9
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# 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
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# Expert Panel Scoring
+
+## How It Works
+
+1. **Assemble 3-5 expert personas** relevant to the copy type
+2. **Each persona scores the copy 1-10** on their area of expertise
+3. **Collect specific critiques** — not just scores, but what to fix
+4. **Revise based on feedback** — address the lowest-scoring areas first
+5. **Re-score after revisions** — iterate until all personas score 7+, with an average of 8+ across the panel
+
+## Recommended Expert Panels
+
+**Landing page copy:**
+- Conversion copywriter (clarity, CTA strength, benefit hierarchy)
+- UX writer (scannability, cognitive load, user flow)
+- Target customer persona (does this speak to me? do I trust it?)
+- Brand strategist (voice consistency, positioning accuracy)
+
+**Email sequence:**
+- Email marketing specialist (subject lines, open/click optimization)
+- Copywriter (hooks, storytelling, persuasion)
+- Spam filter analyst (deliverability red flags, trigger words)
+- Target customer persona (relevance, value, unsubscribe risk)
+
+**Sales page / long-form:**
+- Direct response copywriter (offer structure, objection handling, urgency)
+- Skeptical buyer persona (proof gaps, trust issues, red flags)
+- Editor (flow, readability, conciseness)
+- SEO specialist (keyword coverage, search intent alignment)
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+| Score | Meaning |
+|-------|---------|
+| 9-10 | Publish-ready. No meaningful improvements. |
+| 7-8 | Strong. Minor tweaks only. |
+| 5-6 | Functional but has clear gaps. Needs another pass. |
+| 3-4 | Significant issues. Major revision needed. |
+| 1-2 | Fundamentally broken. Rethink approach. |
+
+## When to Use
+
+- **Always** for launch copy, pricing pages, and high-traffic landing pages
+- **Recommended** for email sequences, sales pages, and ad copy
+- **Optional** for blog posts, social content, and internal docs
+- **Skip** for quick updates, minor edits, and low-stakes content
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Quick-Pass Editing Checks
+
+## 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:**
+
+| Weak | Strong |
+|------|--------|
+| Utilize | Use |
+| Implement | Set up |
+| Leverage | Use |
+| Facilitate | Help |
+| Innovative | New |
+| Robust | Strong |
+| Seamless | Smooth |
+| Cutting-edge | New/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
@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
+# The Seven Sweeps Framework
+
+## 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:**
+
+| Vague | Specific |
+|-------|----------|
+| Save time | Save 4 hours every week |
+| Many customers | 2,847 teams |
+| Fast results | Results in 14 days |
+| Improve your workflow | Cut your reporting time in half |
+| Great support | Response 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.
+
+---
+# 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.