Conciseness

The ~55-line 'Copy Editing Checklist' section restates all seven sweeps nearly verbatim, and the inline 'Weak | Strong' table plus 'Cut these words' list duplicate material the bundled references/plain-english-alternatives.md already provides — much of it generic writing knowledge (cut intensifiers, prefer active voice, 'utilize' → 'use') Claude already has. This is 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections' (score 2) rather than score 3's isolated instances.

Actionability

Each sweep carries a numbered process, a concrete test with worked examples (the So What ❌/✅ pair, the vague→specific table), and specific instructions; the guidance is actionable without code, which the rubric's scoring note says is fine for an instruction-only skill. Not score 5 because the actual edit recommendation step stays generic ('recommend specific edits') and common cases aren't fully covered with before/after rewrites.

Workflow Clarity

The seven sweeps are explicitly sequenced, each ends with a loop-back validation checkpoint ('After this sweep: Return to...'), sweep 7 mandates a final re-check of all prior sweeps, and the collaborative section defines a 'repeat until clean' feedback loop — matching the score-5 anchor's explicit validation steps, feedback loops, and checklists. Copy editing is not a destructive or batch operation, so the score-3 cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The single bundle file (references/plain-english-alternatives.md) is real, one level deep, and clearly signaled in a References section, and the body is well-sectioned for navigation. Held at 4 rather than 5 because the inline word-replacement material overlaps the reference file's purpose, a minor organization gap; not 3 since the framework content itself is appropriately placed in SKILL.md.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('existing marketing copy') and gestures at method ('systematic approach... through multiple focused passes'), but its actions ('edit, review, or improve') are near-synonyms rather than several distinct concrete actions. Fits the score-3 anchor ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions') better than 4, which expects a list of several specific actions; it also clearly exceeds the score-2 bar of minimal/generic actions.

Completeness

Both halves are present: an explicit 'when' with concrete trigger phrases (exceeding the score-4 anchor's 'when could be more explicit') and a 'what' ('provides a systematic approach to editing marketing copy through multiple focused passes'). Not score 5 because the 'what' describes the method abstractly rather than enumerating concrete actions as the score-5 example does.

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes seven natural user phrases — 'edit this copy,' 'review my copy,' 'copy feedback,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'make this better,' 'copy sweep' — alongside the general 'edit, review, or improve.' Coverage of natural terms including synonyms is comprehensive (file extensions are inapplicable to copy editing), matching the score-5 anchor; only trivial variants like 'copyedit' are missing, which would be the score-4 weakness.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear — editing existing marketing copy, distinct from writing new copy — and triggers like 'edit this copy' and 'copy sweep' are distinctive. Minor overlap risk remains from broadly applicable phrases like 'proofread' and 'make this better,' which keeps it at the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' anchor rather than 5.