When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content.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up this text,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging,' 'refresh this content,' 'update this page,' 'this content is outdated,' or 'content audit.'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.
60
68%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/copy-editing/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
89%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 skill description with excellent trigger term coverage and clear completeness, explicitly answering both what the skill does and when to use it. The explicit boundary with the copywriting skill is a notable strength for reducing conflict risk. The main weakness is that the specific capabilities could be more concrete — listing particular editing actions (e.g., tone adjustment, readability improvements, structural tightening) rather than general verbs like 'edit, review, or improve.'
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions beyond 'edit, review, or improve' — e.g., 'tighten verbose sentences, fix tone inconsistencies, improve readability, update outdated messaging, restructure for clarity.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain (marketing copy editing) and some actions like 'edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy' and 'refresh outdated content,' but it doesn't list multiple specific concrete actions (e.g., tighten headlines, fix tone inconsistencies, restructure paragraphs). The actions remain somewhat general. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (edit, review, improve, refresh existing marketing copy) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with extensive trigger phrases). It also includes a helpful boundary condition distinguishing it from the copywriting skill for new copy. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms users would actually say: 'edit this copy,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'make this better,' 'too wordy,' 'tighten this up,' 'this reads awkwardly,' 'clean up this text,' 'sharpen the messaging,' 'refresh this content,' 'content audit,' etc. These are highly natural and varied. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description clearly carves out a distinct niche — editing/improving existing copy vs. writing new copy — and explicitly references the sister skill ('For writing new copy, see copywriting'). This boundary-setting makes it highly distinguishable and unlikely to conflict. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
47%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill has a well-structured workflow with clear sequential steps and validation checkpoints, which is its strongest aspect. However, it is severely over-long and verbose, explaining many concepts Claude already knows (basic editing principles, what passive voice is, what adverbs are). The content would benefit enormously from aggressive condensation — moving detailed sweep descriptions to reference files and keeping only the framework structure and key decision points in the main SKILL.md.
Suggestions
Reduce the main SKILL.md to ~100 lines by moving the detailed seven sweep descriptions into a reference file (e.g., references/seven-sweeps.md) and keeping only a summary table or brief list of each sweep's focus and key check in the main file.
Remove explanations of concepts Claude already knows: what passive voice is, what nominalizations are, basic sentence/paragraph structure rules, what adverbs are, etc.
Cut the word-replacement tables and 'Common Copy Problems & Fixes' section — these are basic copywriting knowledge that Claude possesses. If retained, move to a reference file.
Consolidate the Expert Panel section into a brief overview with a reference link rather than inlining the full panel recommendations, scoring rubric, and usage guidelines.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | This skill is extremely verbose at ~400+ lines. It explains concepts Claude already understands (what passive voice is, what nominalizations are, basic editing principles like 'one idea per sentence'). The 'Core Philosophy' section explains what copy editing is. The seven sweeps framework repeats the same pattern structure seven times with extensive explanations of obvious concepts. Much of this could be condensed to a fraction of its size. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete frameworks (Seven Sweeps, Expert Panel Scoring) with specific checklists and examples like the vague-to-specific table. However, it lacks executable code or commands, and much of the guidance remains at the level of general editing advice rather than specific, copy-paste-ready instructions. The before/after examples are helpful but sparse relative to the volume of content. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Seven Sweeps framework provides a clear sequential workflow with explicit validation steps — each sweep includes a 'Process' section with numbered steps and an 'After this sweep' checkpoint that loops back to verify previous sweeps weren't compromised. The Expert Panel Scoring adds a quality gate with clear pass/fail criteria (all personas 7+, average 8+). The iterative collaborative workflow at the end is also well-sequenced. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references three external files (references/checklist.md, references/content-refresh.md, references/plain-english-alternatives.md) which is good progressive disclosure structure. However, the main SKILL.md itself contains far too much inline content that could be split out — the full seven sweeps details, the expert panel section, and the quick-pass checks could each be separate reference files, keeping the main skill as a concise overview. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 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.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
1145878
Table of Contents
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.