CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

copy-editing

When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content. Also use when the user mentions 'edit this copy,' 'review my copy,' 'copy feedback,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'make this better,' 'copy sweep,' 'tighten this up,' 'this reads awkwardly,' 'clean up this text,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging,' 'refresh this content,' 'update this page,' 'this content is outdated,' or 'content audit,' 'this sounds like AI,' 'AI slop,' 'de-slop this,' or 'make it sound human.' Use this when the user already has copy and wants it improved or refreshed rather than rewritten from scratch. Every edit removes AI tells such as 'it's not X, it's Y' reveals, 'no X, no Y, no Z' lists, and sentences that trail into extra comma clauses. A request to fix one line gets a point edit that changes only that line. For writing new copy, see copywriting.

Quality

87%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

73%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body delivers a well-sequenced editing workflow with explicit validation loop-backs, concrete fix tables, and a properly structured one-level-deep reference bundle. Its main weaknesses are token efficiency — generic editorial knowledge and redundant per-sweep bullet lists that Claude already knows — and inline detail (sweep expansions, expert panel) that belongs in reference files.

Suggestions

Collapse each sweep's paired 'What to check' and 'Common [X] issues' bullet lists into one list — they substantially overlap and roughly halve the sweep sections' length.

Cut or move to a reference the word/sentence/paragraph-level basics Claude already knows ("Vary sentence length", "One idea per sentence", "Passive voice (switch to active)", "Read aloud"), keeping only the domain-specific additions like the AI-tell caps and fact-replacement rules.

Move the Expert Panel Scoring section (personas, panels, rubric table, when-to-use) into a references file and keep a two-line pointer in SKILL.md, since it is a secondary quality gate rather than core workflow.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient — the AI-Tell Check tables, specificity upgrade tables, and mode-selection rules earn their tokens — but each sweep carries redundant paired lists ("What to check" bullets overlapping "Common clarity killers"/"Common voice issues" bullets), and much of the editorial guidance ("Vary sentence length (mix short and long)", "One idea per sentence", "Passive voice (switch to active)", "Read aloud to hear inconsistencies") is basic editing knowledge Claude already has. This sits at the 3 anchor ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'), not 2, because the padding is generic-but-brief rather than extensive conceptual explanation.

3 / 5

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is largely executable: the AI-Tell table gives pattern → example → concrete fix ("'The result? 3x faster.' → Delete the question, keep the answer"), the So What sweep shows a ❌/✅ rewrite, the vague-to-specific and weak-to-strong word tables are directly applicable, and point-edit behavior is precisely specified ("change only what was asked plus the minimum around it, return just the changed lines with a reason"). It stops short of 5 because the sweep process steps and the Expert Panel section ("Collect specific critiques — not just scores") remain high-level directives with no worked end-to-end example.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The multi-step process is clearly sequenced: diagnose mode (A/B/C) before editing, run Sweeps 1–7 in order, and after each sweep an explicit loop-back checkpoint ("After this sweep: Return to So What, Voice and Tone, then Clarity" through to the final full re-check), with a termination condition ("Continue until a full sweep finds no new issues") and a final QA checklist in references/checklist.md. This matches the 5 anchor ('clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists for complex processes'); this is not a destructive or batch operation, so no cap applies.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Bundle structure is good: all three referenced files (references/checklist.md, references/content-refresh.md, references/plain-english-alternatives.md) exist, are one level deep (pointing back only to SKILL.md), and are clearly signaled with content descriptions in a References section plus in-body links like "[references/checklist.md](references/checklist.md#pick-the-edit-mode)". It falls short of 5 because the ~490-line body inlines substantial detail — full seven-sweep expansions and the entire Expert Panel Scoring section — that could be split into references, leaving SKILL.md as a leaner overview.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

95%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

This is a strong description: it explicitly covers what the skill does, when to use it with an extensive list of natural trigger phrases, and how it differs from the sibling copywriting skill. The only weakness is that the core capability verbs (edit/review/improve) are near-synonyms rather than sharply distinct operations.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy", "refresh outdated content", "removes AI tells such as 'it's not X, it's Y' reveals", and "a point edit that changes only that line" — with only minor coverage gaps. It falls short of a 5 because "edit, review, or improve" are overlapping generic verbs rather than multiple distinct concrete operations like the 5-anchor's 'extract, fill, merge, convert' pattern.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' ("improve existing marketing copy", "removes AI tells", point edits) and 'when' ("When the user wants to edit... Also use when the user mentions [trigger phrases]... Use this when the user already has copy") are explicitly and clearly answered with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the 5 anchor. It even adds a boundary clause ("For writing new copy, see copywriting"), going beyond the anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It includes roughly twenty natural phrases users would actually say — "'edit this copy,' 'review my copy,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'copy sweep,' 'too wordy,' 'this reads awkwardly,' 'content audit,' 'AI slop,' 'de-slop this,' 'make it sound human'" — with comprehensive synonym coverage spanning proofreading, refresh, and AI-tell vocabulary. This matches the 5 anchor ('comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms'); nothing common is missing.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — improving existing copy rather than writing new — and explicitly disambiguates from the nearest competing skill ("wants it improved or refreshed rather than rewritten from scratch. For writing new copy, see copywriting"), matching the 5 anchor's 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'. The 4 anchor's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills' is surpassed because the overlap with copywriting is explicitly resolved rather than left implicit.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

coreyhaines31/marketingskills

Path

skills/copy-editing/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.