CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content.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up this text,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging,' 'refresh this content,' 'update this page,' 'this content is outdated,' or 'content audit.' Use this when the user already has copy and wants it improved or refreshed rather than rewritten from scratch. For writing new copy, see copywriting.

75

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%

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

The skill body is highly actionable with a clearly sequenced, loop-driven workflow and well-structured one-level-deep references that all resolve to real files. Its main weakness is verbosity from repeating the same per-sweep sub-structure and retaining several sections that could be condensed or offloaded to the references.

Suggestions

Collapse the repeated 'What to check / Common issues / Process / After this sweep' sub-structure across the seven sweeps into a single template applied once, or move full per-sweep detail into a reference file to cut body length.

Trim or relocate the Expert Panel Scoring and Common Copy Problems sections into references, keeping only the decision guidance ('When to Use' triggers) inline in SKILL.md.

Consolidate the three references section mentions (inline checklist callout, References list, and Content Refresh pointer) into one navigation block to reduce redundancy.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is well organized and free of basic-concept padding, but the seven-sweep structure repeats the same 'What to check / Common X / Process / After this sweep' sub-structure verbatim and the Quick-Pass, Common Problems, and Expert Panel sections add substantial length that could be tightened or pushed to references; matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than score 3's 'every token earns its place.'

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable guidance throughout — specificity and replacement tables ('Save time' to 'Save 4 hours every week', 'Utilize' to 'Use'), explicit moves ('Add the benefit bridge,' 'Add numbers, timeframes, or examples'), and ❌/✅ So-What examples; matches the fully actionable anchor rather than the vaguer score 2.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Seven Sweeps are explicitly sequenced ('Edit copy through seven sequential passes') with feedback loops after each pass ('After this sweep: Return to Clarity Sweep...') and a final full-loop pass, and a lighter Quick-Pass path is offered; matches the 'clear sequence with explicit validation/feedback loops' anchor. These edits are non-destructive so no hard validation gate is required.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview that points to three real, one-level-deep reference files (plain-english-alternatives.md, content-refresh.md, checklist.md), each confirmed to exist in ./references/ and each clearly signaled with a one-line description; matches the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor rather than score 2.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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

The description is specific, trigger-rich, and clearly distinguishes the skill from copywriting while explicitly answering both what it does and when to use it. It is somewhat verbose given the volume of trigger phrases, but every phrase is relevant.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions ('edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content'), matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor; not score 2 because the action coverage is comprehensive rather than partial.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' ('edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content') and 'when' ('Use this when the user already has copy and wants it improved or refreshed rather than rewritten from scratch') with explicit triggers, matching the top anchor; not score 2 because the 'when' is stated directly rather than implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes extensive natural phrases a user would actually say ('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,' 'content audit'), giving good coverage of common variations; not score 2 because it far exceeds 'some relevant keywords.'

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Carves a clear niche (improving/refreshing existing copy) and explicitly disambiguates from the sibling skill ('For writing new copy, see copywriting'), making conflict unlikely; not score 2 because the boundary is stated rather than merely implied.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
coreyhaines31/marketingskills
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.