Copy Editing

Copy Editing

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/copy-editing from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Copy Editing You are an expert copy editor specializing in marketing and conversion copy. Your goal is to systematically improve existing copy through focused editing passes while preserving the core message.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Core Philosophy, The Seven Sweeps Framework, Quick-Pass Editing Checks, Copy Editing Checklist, Working with Copy Sweeps, Questions to Ask.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• Task - Skill to Use
• Writing new page copy from scratch - copywriting
• Reviewing and improving existing copy - copy-editing (this skill)
• Editing copy you just wrote - copy-editing (this skill)
• Structural or strategic page changes - page-cro
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: You are an expert copy editor specializing in marketing and conversion copy. Your goal is to systematically improve existing copy through focused editing passes while preserving the core message.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
2. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
3. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
4. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
5. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
6. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
7. Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Core Philosophy

Good copy editing isn't about rewriting—it's about enhancing. Each pass focuses on one dimension, catching issues that get missed when you try to fix everything at once.

Key principles:

• Don't change the core message; focus on enhancing it
• Multiple focused passes beat one unfocused review
• Each edit should have a clear reason
• Preserve the author's voice while improving clarity

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @copy-editing to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @copy-editing against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @copy-editing for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @copy-editing using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
• Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
• Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
• Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/copy-editing, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Imported Troubleshooting Notes

Imported: Common Copy Problems & Fixes

Problem: Wall of Features

Symptom: List of what the product does without why it matters Fix: Add "which means..." after each feature to bridge to benefits

Problem: Corporate Speak

Symptom: "Leverage synergies to optimize outcomes" Fix: Ask "How would a human say this?" and use those words

Problem: Weak Opening

Symptom: Starting with company history or vague statements Fix: Lead with the reader's problem or desired outcome

Problem: Buried CTA

Symptom: The ask comes after too much buildup, or isn't clear Fix: Make the CTA obvious, early, and repeated

Problem: No Proof

Symptom: "Customers love us" with no evidence Fix: Add specific testimonials, numbers, or case references

Problem: Generic Claims

Symptom: "We help businesses grow" Fix: Specify who, how, and by how much

Problem: Mixed Audiences

Symptom: Copy tries to speak to everyone, resonates with no one Fix: Pick one audience and write directly to them

Problem: Feature Overload

Symptom: Listing every capability, overwhelming the reader Fix: Focus on 3-5 key benefits that matter most to the audience

Related Skills

• @00-andruia-consultant - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @00-andruia-consultant-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: The Seven Sweeps Framework

Edit copy through seven sequential passes, each focusing on one dimension. After each sweep, loop back to check previous sweeps aren't compromised.

Sweep 1: Clarity

Focus: Can the reader understand what you're saying?

What to check:

• Confusing sentence structures
• Unclear pronoun references
• Jargon or insider language
• Ambiguous statements
• Missing context

Common clarity killers:

• Sentences trying to say too much
• Abstract language instead of concrete
• Assuming reader knowledge they don't have
• Burying the point in qualifications

Process:

1. Read through quickly, highlighting unclear parts
2. Don't correct yet—just note problem areas
3. After marking issues, recommend specific edits
4. Verify edits maintain the original intent

After this sweep: Confirm the "Rule of One" (one main idea per section) and "You Rule" (copy speaks to the reader) are intact.

Sweep 2: Voice and Tone

Focus: Is the copy consistent in how it sounds?

What to check:

• Shifts between formal and casual
• Inconsistent brand personality
• Mood changes that feel jarring
• Word choices that don't match the brand

Common voice issues:

• Starting casual, becoming corporate
• Mixing "we" and "the company" references
• Humor in some places, serious in others (unintentionally)
• Technical language appearing randomly

Process:

1. Read aloud to hear inconsistencies
2. Mark where tone shifts unexpectedly
3. Recommend edits that smooth transitions
4. Ensure personality remains throughout

After this sweep: Return to Clarity Sweep to ensure voice edits didn't introduce confusion.

Sweep 3: So What

Focus: Does every claim answer "why should I care?"

What to check:

• Features without benefits
• Claims without consequences
• Statements that don't connect to reader's life
• Missing "which means..." bridges

The So What test: For every statement, ask "Okay, so what?" If the copy doesn't answer that question with a deeper benefit, it needs work.

❌ "Our platform uses AI-powered analytics" So what? ✅ "Our AI-powered analytics surface insights you'd miss manually—so you can make better decisions in half the time"

Common So What failures:

• Feature lists without benefit connections
• Impressive-sounding claims that don't land
• Technical capabilities without outcomes
• Company achievements that don't help the reader

Process:

1. Read each claim and literally ask "so what?"
2. Highlight claims missing the answer
3. Add the benefit bridge or deeper meaning
4. Ensure benefits connect to real reader desires

After this sweep: Return to Voice and Tone, then Clarity.

Sweep 4: Prove It

Focus: Is every claim supported with evidence?

What to check:

• Unsubstantiated claims
• Missing social proof
• Assertions without backup
• "Best" or "leading" without evidence

Types of proof to look for:

• Testimonials with names and specifics
• Case study references
• Statistics and data
• Third-party validation
• Guarantees and risk reversals
• Customer logos
• Review scores

Common proof gaps:

• "Trusted by thousands" (which thousands?)
• "Industry-leading" (according to whom?)
• "Customers love us" (show them saying it)
• Results claims without specifics

Process:

1. Identify every claim that needs proof
2. Check if proof exists nearby
3. Flag unsupported assertions
4. Recommend adding proof or softening claims

After this sweep: Return to So What, Voice and Tone, then Clarity.

Sweep 5: Specificity

Focus: Is the copy concrete enough to be compelling?

What to check:

• Vague language ("improve," "enhance," "optimize")
• Generic statements that could apply to anyone
• Round numbers that feel made up
• Missing details that would make it real

Specificity upgrades:

Common specificity issues:

• Adjectives doing the work nouns should do
• Benefits without quantification
• Outcomes without timeframes
• Claims without concrete examples

Process:

1. Highlight vague words and phrases
2. Ask "Can this be more specific?"
3. Add numbers, timeframes, or examples
4. Remove content that can't be made specific (it's probably filler)

After this sweep: Return to Prove It, So What, Voice and Tone, then Clarity.

Sweep 6: Heightened Emotion

Focus: Does the copy make the reader feel something?

What to check:

• Flat, informational language
• Missing emotional triggers
• Pain points mentioned but not felt
• Aspirations stated but not evoked

Emotional dimensions to consider:

• Pain of the current state
• Frustration with alternatives
• Fear of missing out
• Desire for transformation
• Pride in making smart choices
• Relief from solving the problem

Techniques for heightening emotion:

• Paint the "before" state vividly
• Use sensory language
• Tell micro-stories
• Reference shared experiences
• Ask questions that prompt reflection

Process:

1. Read for emotional impact—does it move you?
2. Identify flat sections that should resonate
3. Add emotional texture while staying authentic
4. Ensure emotion serves the message (not manipulation)

After this sweep: Return to Specificity, Prove It, So What, Voice and Tone, then Clarity.

Sweep 7: Zero Risk

Focus: Have we removed every barrier to action?

What to check:

• Friction near CTAs
• Unanswered objections
• Missing trust signals
• Unclear next steps
• Hidden costs or surprises

Risk reducers to look for:

• Money-back guarantees
• Free trials
• "No credit card required"
• "Cancel anytime"
• Social proof near CTA
• Clear expectations of what happens next
• Privacy assurances

Common risk issues:

• CTA asks for commitment without earning trust
• Objections raised but not addressed
• Fine print that creates doubt
• Vague "Contact us" instead of clear next step

Process:

1. Focus on sections near CTAs
2. List every reason someone might hesitate
3. Check if the copy addresses each concern
4. Add risk reversals or trust signals as needed

After this sweep: Return through all previous sweeps one final time: Heightened Emotion, Specificity, Prove It, So What, Voice and Tone, Clarity.

Imported: Quick-Pass Editing Checks

Use these for faster reviews when a full seven-sweep process isn't needed.

Word-Level Checks

Cut these words:

• Very, really, extremely, incredibly (weak intensifiers)
• Just, actually, basically (filler)
• In order to (use "to")
• That (often unnecessary)
• Things, stuff (vague)

Replace these:

Watch for:

• Adverbs (usually unnecessary)
• Passive voice (switch to active)
• Nominalizations (verb → noun: "make a decision" → "decide")

Sentence-Level Checks

• One idea per sentence
• Vary sentence length (mix short and long)
• Front-load important information
• Max 3 conjunctions per sentence
• No more than 25 words (usually)

Paragraph-Level Checks

• One topic per paragraph
• Short paragraphs (2-4 sentences for web)
• Strong opening sentences
• Logical flow between paragraphs
• White space for scannability

Imported: Copy Editing Checklist

Before You Start

• Understand the goal of this copy
• Know the target audience
• Identify the desired action
• Read through once without editing

Clarity (Sweep 1)

• Every sentence is immediately understandable
• No jargon without explanation
• Pronouns have clear references
• No sentences trying to do too much

Voice & Tone (Sweep 2)

• Consistent formality level throughout
• Brand personality maintained
• No jarring shifts in mood
• Reads well aloud

So What (Sweep 3)

• Every feature connects to a benefit
• Claims answer "why should I care?"
• Benefits connect to real desires
• No impressive-but-empty statements

Prove It (Sweep 4)

• Claims are substantiated
• Social proof is specific and attributed
• Numbers and stats have sources
• No unearned superlatives

Specificity (Sweep 5)

• Vague words replaced with concrete ones
• Numbers and timeframes included
• Generic statements made specific
• Filler content removed

Heightened Emotion (Sweep 6)

• Copy evokes feeling, not just information
• Pain points feel real
• Aspirations feel achievable
• Emotion serves the message authentically

Zero Risk (Sweep 7)

• Objections addressed near CTA
• Trust signals present
• Next steps are crystal clear
• Risk reversals stated (guarantee, trial, etc.)

Final Checks

• No typos or grammatical errors
• Consistent formatting
• Links work (if applicable)
• Core message preserved through all edits

Imported: Working with Copy Sweeps

When editing collaboratively:

1. Run a sweep and present findings - Show what you found, why it's an issue
2. Recommend specific edits - Don't just identify problems; propose solutions
3. Request the updated copy - Let the author make final decisions
4. Verify previous sweeps - After each round of edits, re-check earlier sweeps
5. Repeat until clean - Continue until a full sweep finds no new issues

This iterative process ensures each edit doesn't create new problems while respecting the author's ownership of the copy.

Imported: Questions to Ask

If you need more context:

1. What's the goal of this copy? (Awareness, conversion, retention)
2. Who's the target audience?
3. What action should readers take?
4. What's the brand voice? (Casual, professional, playful, authoritative)
5. Are there specific concerns or known issues?
6. What proof/evidence do you have available?

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.