Copy Editing
Systematic copy improvement through focused editorial passes that enhance clarity, voice, proof, and conversion impact.
Table of Contents
Keywords
copy editing, editorial review, copy feedback, proofreading, content polishing, copy sweep, editorial standards, style consistency, grammar check, fact-checking, clarity editing, voice consistency, benefit framing, proof validation, specificity, conversion copy editing, marketing copy review, copy quality
Clarify First
Before editing, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.
Quick Start
Full Copy Review (Seven Sweeps)
- Read through once without editing to understand the whole piece
- Sweep 1 — Clarity: flag confusing sentences, unclear references, jargon
- Sweep 2 — Voice and Tone: flag shifts in formality, personality inconsistencies
- Sweep 3 — So What: flag features without benefits, claims without consequences
- Sweep 4 — Prove It: flag unsubstantiated claims, missing social proof
- Sweep 5 — Specificity: flag vague language, round numbers, generic statements
- Sweep 6 — Heightened Emotion: strengthen pain points, aspirations, urgency
- Sweep 7 — Zero Risk: remove barriers near CTAs, add trust signals
Quick Copy Pass
- Cut filler words (very, really, just, actually, basically)
- Replace weak verbs (utilize > use, facilitate > help, leverage > use)
- Fix passive voice (reports are generated > we generate reports)
- Verify one idea per sentence, one topic per paragraph
- Check CTA for action orientation
The Seven Sweeps Framework
Edit through seven sequential passes. Each focuses on one dimension. After each sweep, verify previous sweeps are not compromised.
Sweep 1: Clarity
Focus: Can the reader understand what you are saying on the first read?
What to check:
- Sentences trying to say too much (split them)
- Unclear pronoun references ("it" — what is "it"?)
- Jargon or insider language without explanation
- Ambiguous statements that could be read two ways
- Missing context that assumes reader knowledge
Clarity killers to fix:
| Problem |
Fix |
| Sentence over 30 words |
Split into two sentences |
| Abstract language |
Replace with concrete example |
| Buried main point |
Move to beginning of paragraph |
| Three-clause sentence |
Simplify to one or two clauses |
| Undefined acronym |
Spell out on first use |
After this sweep: Confirm the "Rule of One" (one idea per section) and "You Rule" (copy speaks to the reader as "you") are intact.
Sweep 2: Voice and Tone
Focus: Does the copy sound consistent throughout?
What to check:
- Shifts between formal and casual language
- Inconsistent brand personality (joking in one paragraph, corporate in the next)
- Jarring mood changes without transition
- Word choices that do not match the established voice
- Mixing "we" and "the company" references
Voice consistency indicators:
| Consistent |
Inconsistent |
| Same level of contractions throughout |
Contractions in some sections, full forms in others |
| Humor style maintained |
Random joke in otherwise serious copy |
| Same sentence structure patterns |
Short punchy intro, corporate middle, casual close |
| Consistent use of "you" |
Switching between "you," "users," "customers," "one" |
After this sweep: Return to Sweep 1 to ensure voice edits did not introduce confusion.
Sweep 3: So What
Focus: Does every claim answer "why should I care?"
The So What test: For every statement, ask "So what?" If the copy does not answer with a deeper benefit, it needs work.
| Before (features only) |
After (feature + benefit) |
| "Our platform uses AI-powered analytics" |
"Our AI analytics surface insights you would miss manually — so you make better decisions in half the time" |
| "SOC 2 Type II certified" |
"SOC 2 certified — your security team approves us in days, not months" |
| "Real-time dashboard" |
"See exactly what is happening right now, not what happened last week" |
After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 2 and 1.
Sweep 4: Prove It
Focus: Is every claim backed with evidence?
Types of proof to verify:
| Proof Type |
Strength |
Example |
| Named testimonial |
Strong |
"Sarah Chen, VP Marketing at Stripe: 'Reduced our setup time by 60%'" |
| Specific statistic |
Strong |
"2,847 teams use [Product] daily" |
| Case study reference |
Strong |
"See how Linear reduced churn by 23% in 90 days" |
| Third-party validation |
Strong |
"Named a Leader in Gartner's Magic Quadrant 2025" |
| Customer logos |
Medium |
Recognizable brand logos with permission |
| Generic claim |
Weak — flag it |
"Customers love us," "Industry-leading" |
Common proof gaps to flag:
- "Trusted by thousands" (which thousands? give a number)
- "Industry-leading" (according to whom? cite the source)
- "Best-in-class" (by what measure?)
- "Customers love us" (show them saying it)
- Results claims without timeframe or specifics
After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 3, 2, and 1.
Sweep 5: Specificity
Focus: Is the copy concrete enough to be compelling?
Specificity upgrades:
| Vague |
Specific |
| "Save time" |
"Save 4 hours every week" |
| "Many customers" |
"2,847 teams" |
| "Fast results" |
"Results in 14 days" |
| "Improve your workflow" |
"Cut reporting time from 4 hours to 15 minutes" |
| "Great support" |
"Average response time: 2 hours" |
| "Easy to use" |
"Set up in 10 minutes, no code required" |
| "Affordable" |
"Starting at $29/month" |
| "Scalable" |
"Handles 10,000 to 10 million records without slowdown" |
Rule: If a claim cannot be made specific, it is probably filler. Cut it or replace it with something verifiable.
After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 4, 3, 2, and 1.
Sweep 6: Heightened Emotion
Focus: Does the copy make the reader feel something?
Emotional dimensions to check:
| Emotion |
Where to Use |
Technique |
| Pain/frustration |
Problem section |
Paint the "before" state vividly |
| Relief |
Solution section |
Show the contrast with current pain |
| Fear of missing out |
Social proof |
"Teams like yours already use..." |
| Pride |
Aspiration section |
"Be the team that..." |
| Confidence |
CTA area |
"Join 2,847 teams who already..." |
| Urgency |
Near CTA |
Only if genuine (real deadline, limited spots) |
Emotion techniques:
- Paint the "before" state with sensory detail
- Use micro-stories (1-2 sentences) from customer scenarios
- Ask questions that prompt self-reflection
- Reference shared experiences the audience recognizes
After this sweep: Return to Sweeps 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1.
Sweep 7: Zero Risk
Focus: Have we removed every barrier to action?
Friction checklist near CTAs:
After this sweep: Return through all previous sweeps one final time.
Quick-Pass Editing Guide
Word-Level Cuts
Always cut:
very, really, extremely, incredibly, quite, rather, somewhat, just, actually, basically, essentially, literally (unless literal), in order to (use "to"), the fact that, it should be noted that, it is important to
Always replace:
| Weak |
Strong |
| Utilize |
Use |
| Implement |
Set up, build, create |
| Leverage |
Use, apply |
| Facilitate |
Help, enable |
| Innovative |
New, original, first-of-its-kind |
| Robust |
Strong, thorough, [be specific] |
| Seamless |
Smooth, easy, [be specific] |
| Cutting-edge |
Modern, latest, [be specific] |
| Synergy |
[Delete or be specific about the collaboration] |
| Paradigm |
[Delete or say what actually changed] |
Sentence-Level Checks
- One idea per sentence
- Vary sentence length (mix 8-word and 20-word sentences)
- Front-load important information (do not bury the point)
- Maximum 3 conjunctions per sentence
- Active voice default (flip passive constructions)
Paragraph-Level Checks
- One topic per paragraph
- 2-4 sentences maximum for web copy
- Strong opening sentence that states the paragraph's point
- Logical flow between paragraphs
- White space for scannability
Common Copy Problems and Fixes
| Problem |
Symptom |
Fix |
| Wall of features |
List of what it does, no why |
Add "which means..." after each feature |
| Corporate speak |
"Leverage synergies to optimize outcomes" |
Ask "How would a human say this?" |
| Weak opening |
Starts with company history or vague statement |
Lead with reader's problem or desired outcome |
| Buried CTA |
Ask comes after too much buildup |
Make CTA obvious, early, and repeated |
| No proof |
"Customers love us" with no evidence |
Add specific testimonials, numbers, case references |
| Generic claims |
"We help businesses grow" |
Specify who, how, and by how much |
| Mixed audiences |
Tries to speak to everyone |
Pick one audience per page/section |
| Feature overload |
Every capability listed |
Focus on 3-5 benefits that matter most |
| Passive voice |
"Reports are generated by the system" |
"The system generates reports" |
| Weasel words |
"Up to 50% improvement" |
State the median or typical result with context |
Style Consistency Standards
Checklist for Style Consistency
Common Style Conflicts
| Decision |
Option A |
Option B |
How to Decide |
| Oxford comma |
Yes |
No |
Pick one, document it, enforce it |
| Heading capitalization |
Sentence case |
Title Case |
Sentence case is modern standard |
| "Login" vs "Log in" |
One word (noun) |
Two words (verb) |
"Log in" as verb, "Login" as noun/adjective |
| "Setup" vs "Set up" |
One word (noun) |
Two words (verb) |
Same pattern as login |
| Ampersand vs "and" |
& |
and |
"and" in prose, "&" only in headings if brand standard |
Fact-Checking Protocol
What to Verify
Red Flags to Investigate
- Round numbers without source (sounds made up)
- Superlatives without qualification ("fastest," "best," "only")
- Claims that contradict other pages on the same site
- Screenshots from an older version of the product
- Competitor comparisons without date (may be outdated)
Editorial Checklist
Pre-Edit
During Edit (Seven Sweeps Summary)
Post-Edit
Best Practices
Edit in passes, not all at once — Trying to fix everything in one read misses issues. Each sweep catches what the others miss.
Preserve the author's voice — Good copy editing enhances; it does not replace. Maintain the original voice while improving clarity and impact.
Every edit needs a reason — Never change a word without explaining the principle. "Changed because it is clearer" or "Replaced because the original was vague."
Prioritize by conversion impact — Fix the CTA before fixing a comma. Fix the headline before fixing paragraph 12.
Read aloud — Voice and rhythm problems become obvious when read aloud. If it sounds wrong spoken, it reads wrong too.
Flag what you cannot fix — If a claim needs proof the author must provide, flag it clearly. You can improve phrasing but you cannot invent evidence.
Re-check previous sweeps — Each sweep can introduce issues caught by earlier sweeps. Always go back.
Cut first, add second — Most marketing copy is 20-30% too long. Cut the fat before adding new content.
Get context before editing — A copy edit without knowing the audience, goal, and voice standard produces misaligned feedback.
Track recurring issues — If the same problems appear across multiple pieces, the issue is systemic. Flag it as a process improvement, not just an edit.
Integration Points
- Copywriting — Use for writing new copy from scratch. Copy Editing handles reviewing and improving existing copy.
- Content Humanizer — Use when AI-generated copy needs humanization before editorial review.
- Content Production — Use Copy Editing as part of the production pipeline between drafting and publishing.
- Brand Guidelines — Reference brand voice and style standards during the Voice and Tone sweep.
- Marketing Psychology — Apply psychological principles during the Heightened Emotion sweep.
- Content Strategy — Use when the problem is what to say, not how to say it.
Troubleshooting
| Problem |
Likely Cause |
Fix |
| Same issues appear across multiple pieces from the same writer |
Systemic writing habit, not a one-off error |
Create a writer-specific checklist of recurring issues; address in style guide or training, not just per-piece edits |
| Copy loses its original voice after editing |
Editor over-corrected; replaced author voice with editor's style |
Preserve author voice — enhance clarity and impact without rewriting personality. Read original aloud before editing |
| Edits introduce new inconsistencies |
Previous sweeps not re-checked after later sweeps modified content |
Always re-run earlier sweeps after making changes — Sweep 7 edits can break Sweep 1 clarity |
| CTA buried or ineffective despite multiple edit passes |
CTA was not the focus of any sweep — copy editing focused on prose quality |
Prioritize CTA area first (Sweep 7: Zero Risk) before polishing earlier sections |
| Fact-checking reveals unverifiable claims |
Writer invented statistics or used outdated data |
Flag and return to writer — editor cannot invent evidence. Document all unverifiable claims explicitly |
| Style inconsistencies between sections |
Multiple writers contributed or copy was assembled from different drafts |
Run style consistency checklist end-to-end; standardize contractions, heading case, number format, and punctuation |
Success Criteria
- Seven Sweeps completion: All 7 sweeps completed per piece with previous sweeps re-verified after each pass
- Error rate: Zero grammatical errors, typos, or broken links in published copy
- Style consistency: 100% adherence to documented style guide (Oxford comma, heading case, number format, etc.)
- Fact verification: All statistics have named source and year; all claims are verifiable or labeled as opinion
- CTA effectiveness: Every piece has a clear, specific CTA visible within 2 scrolls of the content end
- Clarity score: Every sentence understandable on first read — zero ambiguous pronoun references or multi-clause confusion
- Edit turnaround: 48-hour maximum turnaround on editorial review with clear change documentation
Scope & Limitations
In scope:
- Seven Sweeps editorial framework (clarity, voice, so-what, proof, specificity, emotion, zero-risk)
- Quick-pass editing (word-level, sentence-level, paragraph-level)
- Style consistency auditing and enforcement
- Fact-checking protocol for claims, statistics, and competitive references
- Pre-edit and post-edit checklists
- Common copy problem diagnosis and fixing
Out of scope:
- Writing new copy from scratch (use Copywriting skill)
- AI content detection and humanization (use Content Humanizer)
- SEO optimization passes (use Content Production optimization pipeline)
- Content strategy or topic selection (use Content Strategy)
- Visual design or layout feedback
- Legal review of marketing claims
Known limitations:
- Cannot verify internal company claims (product capabilities, uptime SLAs) without access to product documentation
- Fact-checking external claims requires access to original sources — may need writer input
- Style consistency requires an existing style guide; without one, editor must make judgment calls
- Emotional impact (Sweep 6) is subjective and varies by audience — use target audience context
- Multi-language copy editing requires native-level proficiency in each language
Scripts
# Score content readability with detailed metrics
python scripts/readability_scorer.py article.md --json
# Detect AI patterns that need humanization before editing
python scripts/ai_pattern_detector.py article.md --verbose
# Check style consistency across multiple documents
python scripts/style_checker.py --files doc1.md doc2.md doc3.md --json
1---2name: copy-editing-33description: Systematic copy editing through focused passes (the Seven Sweeps Framework) covering clarity, voice, proof, specificity, and friction removal. Use when editing marketing copy, reviewing drafts, polishing content, or proofreading.4license: MIT5---6# Copy Editing
7
8Systematic copy improvement through focused editorial passes that enhance clarity, voice, proof, and conversion impact.
9
10---
11
12## Table of Contents
13
14- [Keywords](#keywords)
15- [Quick Start](#quick-start)
16- [The Seven Sweeps Framework](#the-seven-sweeps-framework)
17- [Quick-Pass Editing Guide](#quick-pass-editing-guide)
18- [Common Copy Problems and Fixes](#common-copy-problems-and-fixes)
19- [Style Consistency Standards](#style-consistency-standards)
20- [Fact-Checking Protocol](#fact-checking-protocol)
21- [Editorial Checklist](#editorial-checklist)
22- [Best Practices](#best-practices)
23- [Integration Points](#integration-points)
24
25---
26
27## Keywords
28
29copy editing, editorial review, copy feedback, proofreading, content polishing, copy sweep, editorial standards, style consistency, grammar check, fact-checking, clarity editing, voice consistency, benefit framing, proof validation, specificity, conversion copy editing, marketing copy review, copy quality
30
31---
32
33## Clarify First
34
35Before editing, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
36
37- [ ] **Goal & desired action** — what the copy must get the reader to do (prioritizes the CTA / Zero Risk sweep)
38- [ ] **Target audience** — who reads it and their awareness level (calibrates the So What, Specificity, and Emotion sweeps)
39- [ ] **Voice & style standard** — brand voice or an existing style guide (drives the Voice and Style Consistency sweeps)
40- [ ] **Edit depth** — full Seven Sweeps or a quick polish pass (sets the scope of the review)
41
42Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.
43
44## Quick Start
45
46### Full Copy Review (Seven Sweeps)
47
481. Read through once without editing to understand the whole piece
492. Sweep 1 — Clarity: flag confusing sentences, unclear references, jargon
503. Sweep 2 — Voice and Tone: flag shifts in formality, personality inconsistencies
514. Sweep 3 — So What: flag features without benefits, claims without consequences
525. Sweep 4 — Prove It: flag unsubstantiated claims, missing social proof
536. Sweep 5 — Specificity: flag vague language, round numbers, generic statements
547. Sweep 6 — Heightened Emotion: strengthen pain points, aspirations, urgency
558. Sweep 7 — Zero Risk: remove barriers near CTAs, add trust signals
56
57### Quick Copy Pass
58
591. Cut filler words (very, really, just, actually, basically)
602. Replace weak verbs (utilize > use, facilitate > help, leverage > use)
613. Fix passive voice (reports are generated > we generate reports)
624. Verify one idea per sentence, one topic per paragraph
635. Check CTA for action orientation
64
65---
66
67## The Seven Sweeps Framework
68
69Edit through seven sequential passes. Each focuses on one dimension. After each sweep, verify previous sweeps are not compromised.
70
71### Sweep 1: Clarity
72
73**Focus:** Can the reader understand what you are saying on the first read?
74
75**What to check:**
76- Sentences trying to say too much (split them)
77- Unclear pronoun references ("it" — what is "it"?)
78- Jargon or insider language without explanation
79- Ambiguous statements that could be read two ways
80- Missing context that assumes reader knowledge
81
82**Clarity killers to fix:**
83
84| Problem | Fix |
85|---------|-----|
86| Sentence over 30 words | Split into two sentences |
87| Abstract language | Replace with concrete example |
88| Buried main point | Move to beginning of paragraph |
89| Three-clause sentence | Simplify to one or two clauses |
90| Undefined acronym | Spell out on first use |
91
92**After this sweep:** Confirm the "Rule of One" (one idea per section) and "You Rule" (copy speaks to the reader as "you") are intact.
93
94### Sweep 2: Voice and Tone
95
96**Focus:** Does the copy sound consistent throughout?
97
98**What to check:**
99- Shifts between formal and casual language
100- Inconsistent brand personality (joking in one paragraph, corporate in the next)
101- Jarring mood changes without transition
102- Word choices that do not match the established voice
103- Mixing "we" and "the company" references
104
105**Voice consistency indicators:**
106
107| Consistent | Inconsistent |
108|-----------|-------------|
109| Same level of contractions throughout | Contractions in some sections, full forms in others |
110| Humor style maintained | Random joke in otherwise serious copy |
111| Same sentence structure patterns | Short punchy intro, corporate middle, casual close |
112| Consistent use of "you" | Switching between "you," "users," "customers," "one" |
113
114**After this sweep:** Return to Sweep 1 to ensure voice edits did not introduce confusion.
115
116### Sweep 3: So What
117
118**Focus:** Does every claim answer "why should I care?"
119
120**The So What test:** For every statement, ask "So what?" If the copy does not answer with a deeper benefit, it needs work.
121
122| Before (features only) | After (feature + benefit) |
123|------------------------|--------------------------|
124| "Our platform uses AI-powered analytics" | "Our AI analytics surface insights you would miss manually — so you make better decisions in half the time" |
125| "SOC 2 Type II certified" | "SOC 2 certified — your security team approves us in days, not months" |
126| "Real-time dashboard" | "See exactly what is happening right now, not what happened last week" |
127
128**After this sweep:** Return to Sweeps 2 and 1.
129
130### Sweep 4: Prove It
131
132**Focus:** Is every claim backed with evidence?
133
134**Types of proof to verify:**
135
136| Proof Type | Strength | Example |
137|-----------|----------|---------|
138| Named testimonial | Strong | "Sarah Chen, VP Marketing at Stripe: 'Reduced our setup time by 60%'" |
139| Specific statistic | Strong | "2,847 teams use [Product] daily" |
140| Case study reference | Strong | "See how Linear reduced churn by 23% in 90 days" |
141| Third-party validation | Strong | "Named a Leader in Gartner's Magic Quadrant 2025" |
142| Customer logos | Medium | Recognizable brand logos with permission |
143| Generic claim | Weak — flag it | "Customers love us," "Industry-leading" |
144
145**Common proof gaps to flag:**
146- "Trusted by thousands" (which thousands? give a number)
147- "Industry-leading" (according to whom? cite the source)
148- "Best-in-class" (by what measure?)
149- "Customers love us" (show them saying it)
150- Results claims without timeframe or specifics
151
152**After this sweep:** Return to Sweeps 3, 2, and 1.
153
154### Sweep 5: Specificity
155
156**Focus:** Is the copy concrete enough to be compelling?
157
158**Specificity upgrades:**
159
160| Vague | Specific |
161|-------|---------|
162| "Save time" | "Save 4 hours every week" |
163| "Many customers" | "2,847 teams" |
164| "Fast results" | "Results in 14 days" |
165| "Improve your workflow" | "Cut reporting time from 4 hours to 15 minutes" |
166| "Great support" | "Average response time: 2 hours" |
167| "Easy to use" | "Set up in 10 minutes, no code required" |
168| "Affordable" | "Starting at $29/month" |
169| "Scalable" | "Handles 10,000 to 10 million records without slowdown" |
170
171**Rule:** If a claim cannot be made specific, it is probably filler. Cut it or replace it with something verifiable.
172
173**After this sweep:** Return to Sweeps 4, 3, 2, and 1.
174
175### Sweep 6: Heightened Emotion
176
177**Focus:** Does the copy make the reader feel something?
178
179**Emotional dimensions to check:**
180
181| Emotion | Where to Use | Technique |
182|---------|-------------|-----------|
183| Pain/frustration | Problem section | Paint the "before" state vividly |
184| Relief | Solution section | Show the contrast with current pain |
185| Fear of missing out | Social proof | "Teams like yours already use..." |
186| Pride | Aspiration section | "Be the team that..." |
187| Confidence | CTA area | "Join 2,847 teams who already..." |
188| Urgency | Near CTA | Only if genuine (real deadline, limited spots) |
189
190**Emotion techniques:**
191- Paint the "before" state with sensory detail
192- Use micro-stories (1-2 sentences) from customer scenarios
193- Ask questions that prompt self-reflection
194- Reference shared experiences the audience recognizes
195
196**After this sweep:** Return to Sweeps 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1.
197
198### Sweep 7: Zero Risk
199
200**Focus:** Have we removed every barrier to action?
201
202**Friction checklist near CTAs:**
203- [ ] What happens after clicking is clear (not a mystery)
204- [ ] Objections addressed within 2 scrolls of the CTA
205- [ ] Trust signals visible (guarantee, certifications, customer count)
206- [ ] Next steps are specific ("Start your 14-day free trial" not "Get started")
207- [ ] Risk reversals stated explicitly (money-back, no CC, cancel anytime)
208- [ ] Privacy concerns addressed if form collects data
209
210**After this sweep:** Return through all previous sweeps one final time.
211
212---
213
214## Quick-Pass Editing Guide
215
216### Word-Level Cuts
217
218**Always cut:**
219very, really, extremely, incredibly, quite, rather, somewhat, just, actually, basically, essentially, literally (unless literal), in order to (use "to"), the fact that, it should be noted that, it is important to
220
221**Always replace:**
222
223| Weak | Strong |
224|------|--------|
225| Utilize | Use |
226| Implement | Set up, build, create |
227| Leverage | Use, apply |
228| Facilitate | Help, enable |
229| Innovative | New, original, first-of-its-kind |
230| Robust | Strong, thorough, [be specific] |
231| Seamless | Smooth, easy, [be specific] |
232| Cutting-edge | Modern, latest, [be specific] |
233| Synergy | [Delete or be specific about the collaboration] |
234| Paradigm | [Delete or say what actually changed] |
235
236### Sentence-Level Checks
237
238- One idea per sentence
239- Vary sentence length (mix 8-word and 20-word sentences)
240- Front-load important information (do not bury the point)
241- Maximum 3 conjunctions per sentence
242- Active voice default (flip passive constructions)
243
244### Paragraph-Level Checks
245
246- One topic per paragraph
247- 2-4 sentences maximum for web copy
248- Strong opening sentence that states the paragraph's point
249- Logical flow between paragraphs
250- White space for scannability
251
252---
253
254## Common Copy Problems and Fixes
255
256| Problem | Symptom | Fix |
257|---------|---------|-----|
258| Wall of features | List of what it does, no why | Add "which means..." after each feature |
259| Corporate speak | "Leverage synergies to optimize outcomes" | Ask "How would a human say this?" |
260| Weak opening | Starts with company history or vague statement | Lead with reader's problem or desired outcome |
261| Buried CTA | Ask comes after too much buildup | Make CTA obvious, early, and repeated |
262| No proof | "Customers love us" with no evidence | Add specific testimonials, numbers, case references |
263| Generic claims | "We help businesses grow" | Specify who, how, and by how much |
264| Mixed audiences | Tries to speak to everyone | Pick one audience per page/section |
265| Feature overload | Every capability listed | Focus on 3-5 benefits that matter most |
266| Passive voice | "Reports are generated by the system" | "The system generates reports" |
267| Weasel words | "Up to 50% improvement" | State the median or typical result with context |
268
269---
270
271## Style Consistency Standards
272
273### Checklist for Style Consistency
274
275- [ ] Oxford comma: used consistently (or consistently omitted)
276- [ ] Contractions: consistent usage throughout
277- [ ] Heading case: consistent (sentence case or title case, not mixed)
278- [ ] Number style: consistent (spell out 1-9, numerals for 10+, or chosen standard)
279- [ ] Date format: consistent (March 9, 2026 or 2026-03-09, not mixed)
280- [ ] Brand name: capitalized and formatted consistently
281- [ ] Product/feature names: capitalized consistently per brand standards
282- [ ] Bulleted lists: consistent punctuation (periods or no periods)
283- [ ] Acronyms: spelled out on first use in each document
284- [ ] Em dashes, en dashes, hyphens: used correctly and consistently
285- [ ] Quotation marks: consistent style (straight or curly)
286
287### Common Style Conflicts
288
289| Decision | Option A | Option B | How to Decide |
290|----------|----------|----------|---------------|
291| Oxford comma | Yes | No | Pick one, document it, enforce it |
292| Heading capitalization | Sentence case | Title Case | Sentence case is modern standard |
293| "Login" vs "Log in" | One word (noun) | Two words (verb) | "Log in" as verb, "Login" as noun/adjective |
294| "Setup" vs "Set up" | One word (noun) | Two words (verb) | Same pattern as login |
295| Ampersand vs "and" | & | and | "and" in prose, "&" only in headings if brand standard |
296
297---
298
299## Fact-Checking Protocol
300
301### What to Verify
302
303- [ ] All statistics have a named source and year
304- [ ] Customer testimonials are attributed to real, named individuals
305- [ ] Customer logos are used with permission
306- [ ] Competitive claims are accurate and current
307- [ ] Product capabilities described are actually available (not roadmap items)
308- [ ] Pricing is current and matches the pricing page
309- [ ] Certifications and compliance claims are active (SOC 2, GDPR, etc.)
310- [ ] Awards and recognition are current year or specified year
311- [ ] Integration claims list actual integrations, not aspirational ones
312- [ ] Uptime/SLA claims match the actual SLA
313
314### Red Flags to Investigate
315
316- Round numbers without source (sounds made up)
317- Superlatives without qualification ("fastest," "best," "only")
318- Claims that contradict other pages on the same site
319- Screenshots from an older version of the product
320- Competitor comparisons without date (may be outdated)
321
322---
323
324## Editorial Checklist
325
326### Pre-Edit
327
328- [ ] Understand the goal of this copy
329- [ ] Know the target audience
330- [ ] Identify the desired action
331- [ ] Read through once without editing
332
333### During Edit (Seven Sweeps Summary)
334
335- [ ] Sweep 1: Every sentence is immediately understandable
336- [ ] Sweep 2: Voice is consistent throughout
337- [ ] Sweep 3: Every feature connects to a benefit
338- [ ] Sweep 4: Claims are substantiated with evidence
339- [ ] Sweep 5: Vague words replaced with specifics
340- [ ] Sweep 6: Copy evokes appropriate emotion
341- [ ] Sweep 7: Barriers to action removed near CTAs
342
343### Post-Edit
344
345- [ ] No typos or grammatical errors
346- [ ] Consistent formatting throughout
347- [ ] Core message preserved through all edits
348- [ ] All links functional (if applicable)
349- [ ] Consistent style applied (see style checklist)
350
351---
352
353## Best Practices
354
3551. **Edit in passes, not all at once** — Trying to fix everything in one read misses issues. Each sweep catches what the others miss.
356
3572. **Preserve the author's voice** — Good copy editing enhances; it does not replace. Maintain the original voice while improving clarity and impact.
358
3593. **Every edit needs a reason** — Never change a word without explaining the principle. "Changed because it is clearer" or "Replaced because the original was vague."
360
3614. **Prioritize by conversion impact** — Fix the CTA before fixing a comma. Fix the headline before fixing paragraph 12.
362
3635. **Read aloud** — Voice and rhythm problems become obvious when read aloud. If it sounds wrong spoken, it reads wrong too.
364
3656. **Flag what you cannot fix** — If a claim needs proof the author must provide, flag it clearly. You can improve phrasing but you cannot invent evidence.
366
3677. **Re-check previous sweeps** — Each sweep can introduce issues caught by earlier sweeps. Always go back.
368
3698. **Cut first, add second** — Most marketing copy is 20-30% too long. Cut the fat before adding new content.
370
3719. **Get context before editing** — A copy edit without knowing the audience, goal, and voice standard produces misaligned feedback.
372
37310. **Track recurring issues** — If the same problems appear across multiple pieces, the issue is systemic. Flag it as a process improvement, not just an edit.
374
375---
376
377## Integration Points
378
379- **Copywriting** — Use for writing new copy from scratch. Copy Editing handles reviewing and improving existing copy.
380- **Content Humanizer** — Use when AI-generated copy needs humanization before editorial review.
381- **Content Production** — Use Copy Editing as part of the production pipeline between drafting and publishing.
382- **Brand Guidelines** — Reference brand voice and style standards during the Voice and Tone sweep.
383- **Marketing Psychology** — Apply psychological principles during the Heightened Emotion sweep.
384- **Content Strategy** — Use when the problem is what to say, not how to say it.
385
386---
387
388## Troubleshooting
389
390| Problem | Likely Cause | Fix |
391|---------|-------------|-----|
392| Same issues appear across multiple pieces from the same writer | Systemic writing habit, not a one-off error | Create a writer-specific checklist of recurring issues; address in style guide or training, not just per-piece edits |
393| Copy loses its original voice after editing | Editor over-corrected; replaced author voice with editor's style | Preserve author voice — enhance clarity and impact without rewriting personality. Read original aloud before editing |
394| Edits introduce new inconsistencies | Previous sweeps not re-checked after later sweeps modified content | Always re-run earlier sweeps after making changes — Sweep 7 edits can break Sweep 1 clarity |
395| CTA buried or ineffective despite multiple edit passes | CTA was not the focus of any sweep — copy editing focused on prose quality | Prioritize CTA area first (Sweep 7: Zero Risk) before polishing earlier sections |
396| Fact-checking reveals unverifiable claims | Writer invented statistics or used outdated data | Flag and return to writer — editor cannot invent evidence. Document all unverifiable claims explicitly |
397| Style inconsistencies between sections | Multiple writers contributed or copy was assembled from different drafts | Run style consistency checklist end-to-end; standardize contractions, heading case, number format, and punctuation |
398
399---
400
401## Success Criteria
402
403- **Seven Sweeps completion**: All 7 sweeps completed per piece with previous sweeps re-verified after each pass
404- **Error rate**: Zero grammatical errors, typos, or broken links in published copy
405- **Style consistency**: 100% adherence to documented style guide (Oxford comma, heading case, number format, etc.)
406- **Fact verification**: All statistics have named source and year; all claims are verifiable or labeled as opinion
407- **CTA effectiveness**: Every piece has a clear, specific CTA visible within 2 scrolls of the content end
408- **Clarity score**: Every sentence understandable on first read — zero ambiguous pronoun references or multi-clause confusion
409- **Edit turnaround**: 48-hour maximum turnaround on editorial review with clear change documentation
410
411---
412
413## Scope & Limitations
414
415**In scope:**
416- Seven Sweeps editorial framework (clarity, voice, so-what, proof, specificity, emotion, zero-risk)
417- Quick-pass editing (word-level, sentence-level, paragraph-level)
418- Style consistency auditing and enforcement
419- Fact-checking protocol for claims, statistics, and competitive references
420- Pre-edit and post-edit checklists
421- Common copy problem diagnosis and fixing
422
423**Out of scope:**
424- Writing new copy from scratch (use Copywriting skill)
425- AI content detection and humanization (use Content Humanizer)
426- SEO optimization passes (use Content Production optimization pipeline)
427- Content strategy or topic selection (use Content Strategy)
428- Visual design or layout feedback
429- Legal review of marketing claims
430
431**Known limitations:**
432- Cannot verify internal company claims (product capabilities, uptime SLAs) without access to product documentation
433- Fact-checking external claims requires access to original sources — may need writer input
434- Style consistency requires an existing style guide; without one, editor must make judgment calls
435- Emotional impact (Sweep 6) is subjective and varies by audience — use target audience context
436- Multi-language copy editing requires native-level proficiency in each language
437
438---
439
440## Scripts
441
442```bash
443# Score content readability with detailed metrics
444python scripts/readability_scorer.py article.md --json
445
446# Detect AI patterns that need humanization before editing
447python scripts/ai_pattern_detector.py article.md --verbose
448
449# Check style consistency across multiple documents
450python scripts/style_checker.py --files doc1.md doc2.md doc3.md --json
451```