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>

shared/skills/copy-editing/references/seven-sweeps.md

@@ -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.