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When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content.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up this text,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging,' 'refresh this content,' 'update this page,' 'this content is outdated,' or 'content audit.' 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.

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 is well structured with a genuinely useful, clearly sequenced methodology and strong feedback loops, and its reference bundle is real and well-wired. Its main weakness is token efficiency: the Quick-Pass section and Common Problems section re-teach editing basics Claude already knows and overlap both the sweeps and the plain-English reference file.

Suggestions

Cut the 'Quick-Pass Editing Checks' word-level tables (weak intensifiers, Utilize→Use) and point to references/plain-english-alternatives.md instead — they duplicate that file and cover editing basics Claude already knows.

Merge 'Common Copy Problems & Fixes' into the relevant sweeps (e.g., 'Wall of Features' into Sweep 3 So What, 'No Proof' into Sweep 4) to remove the near-duplicate section.

Replace abstract sweep instructions like 'Ensure emotion serves the message (not manipulation)' with a concrete check or example, as the So What sweep already does with its ❌/✅ pair.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The Seven Sweeps framework is genuine skill-specific value, but the 'Quick-Pass Editing Checks' section (cut 'very, really, extremely'; 'Utilize → Use') restates basic editing knowledge Claude already has and duplicates references/plain-english-alternatives.md, and 'Common Copy Problems & Fixes' largely restates the sweeps. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than the noticeably-padded anchor at 2 or the minor-trim anchor at 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Each sweep gives a concrete 'What to check' list, a numbered process, before/after examples ('Our platform uses AI-powered analytics' vs. the benefit-bridged rewrite), and vague-to-specific tables. Some guidance remains abstract ('Ensure emotion serves the message (not manipulation)'), so it fits 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' rather than the fully copy-paste-ready top anchor.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The seven sweeps are explicitly sequenced, each ends with a named loop-back ('After this sweep: Return to Voice and Tone, then Clarity'), and the 'Working with Copy Sweeps' loop adds verification with an exit condition ('Repeat until clean' / 'until a full sweep finds no new issues'), plus a final checklist reference. This matches the top anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation steps, and feedback loops.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

All three referenced files (checklist.md, content-refresh.md, plain-english-alternatives.md) exist, are clearly signaled in a References section plus dedicated sections, and are one level deep with no nesting. It falls short of 5 because the ~450-line body inlines material that belongs in references — the Quick-Pass word/sentence tables duplicate plain-english-alternatives.md and the problems-and-fixes section could be split out.

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.

A strong description: it explicitly answers both what the skill does and when to use it, with an unusually thorough set of natural trigger phrases and an explicit boundary against the copywriting skill. The only gap is that its capability verbs (edit/review/improve/refresh) are generic rather than naming the skill's distinctive methodology.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (marketing copy) and several actions ('edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content'), matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. It falls short of 5 because the actions are generic editing verbs and distinctive capabilities (the sweeps framework, expert panel scoring) are not listed.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both what ('edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content') and when ('When the user wants to... Also use when the user mentions...') are explicitly and clearly stated with concrete trigger phrases, plus a use-condition ('when the user already has copy... rather than rewritten from scratch'). This matches the top anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural trigger coverage including abundant synonyms users would actually say: 'edit this copy,' 'review my copy,' 'proofread,' 'polish this,' 'copy sweep,' 'tighten this up,' 'too wordy,' 'content audit,' 'this content is outdated.' This matches the 'comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms' anchor; no common variation is missing.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (existing marketing copy) with an explicit boundary against the sibling skill ('For writing new copy, see copywriting') and distinct triggers. A few broad phrases ('make this better,' 'clean up this text') could apply to non-marketing text, but this is minimal conflict risk, fitting the top anchor rather than the 'minor overlap risk' anchor at 4.

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

joshmanders/dotfiles

Path

claude/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.