Julian lechnerandClaude Opus 5.5
c8b00584d9
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>
241 lines
6.7 KiB
Markdown
241 lines
6.7 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|