Communitygithub.com

DigitalRavagers/Experiment

When the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content.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up this text,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging,' 'refresh this content,' 'update this page,' 'this content is outdated,' or 'content audit.'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

Experiment 是什麼?

Experiment is a Claude Code agent skill that when the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content.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up this text,' 'too wordy,' 'sharpen the messaging,' 'refresh this content,' 'update this page,' 'this content is outdated,' or 'content audit.'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.

相容平台✓Claude Code~Codex CLI~Cursor
npx skills add https://github.com/DigitalRavagers/Experiment/tree/HEAD/.agents/skills/copy-editing

在你喜歡的 AI 中提問

開啟一個已預先載入此 Agent Skill 的新對話。

說明文件

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.

Core Philosophy

Check for product marketing context first: If .agents/product-marketing.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing.md, or the legacy product-marketing-context.md filename, in older setups), read it before editing. Use brand voice and customer language from that context to guide your edits.

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

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:

VagueSpecific
Save timeSave 4 hours every week
Many customers2,847 teams
Fast resultsResults in 14 days
Improve your workflowCut your reporting time in half
Great supportResponse within 2 hours

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.


Expert Panel Scoring

Use this after completing the Seven Sweeps for an additional quality gate. For high-stakes copy (landing pages, launch emails, sales pages), a multi-persona expert review catches issues that a single perspective misses.

How It Works

  1. Assemble 3-5 expert personas relevant to the copy type
  2. Each persona scores the copy 1-10 on their area of expertise
  3. Collect specific critiques — not just scores, but what to fix
  4. Revise based on feedback — address the lowest-scoring areas first
  5. Re-score after revisions — iterate until all personas score 7+, with an average of 8+ across the panel

Recommended Expert Panels

Landing page copy:

  • Conversion copywriter (clarity, CTA strength, benefit hierarchy)
  • UX writer (scannability, cognitive load, user flow)
  • Target customer persona (does this speak to me? do I trust it?)
  • Brand strategist (voice consistency, positioning accuracy)

Email sequence:

  • Email marketing specialist (subject lines, open/click optimization)
  • Copywriter (hooks, storytelling, persuasion)
  • Spam filter analyst (deliverability red flags, trigger words)
  • Target customer persona (relevance, value, unsubscribe risk)

Sales page / long-form:

  • Direct response copywriter (offer structure, objection handling, urgency)
  • Skeptical buyer persona (proof gaps, trust issues, red flags)
  • Editor (flow, readability, conciseness)
  • SEO specialist (keyword coverage, search intent alignment)

Scoring Rubric

ScoreMeaning
9-10Publish-ready. No meaningful improvements.
7-8Strong. Minor tweaks only.
5-6Functional but has clear gaps. Needs another pass.
3-4Significant issues. Major revision needed.
1-2Fundamentally broken. Rethink approach.

When to Use

  • Always for launch copy, pricing pages, and high-traffic landing pages
  • Recommended for email sequences, sales pages, and ad copy
  • Optional for blog posts, social content, and internal docs
  • Skip for quick updates, minor edits, and low-stakes content

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:

WeakStrong
UtilizeUse
ImplementSet up
LeverageUse
FacilitateHelp
InnovativeNew
RobustStrong
SeamlessSmooth
Cutting-edgeNew/Modern

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

Copy Editing Checklist

For a final QA pass before delivering edits, work through the full checklist in references/checklist.md — covering all seven sweeps plus pre-start and final-check items.


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


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.


References


Content Refresh Editing

Copy editing isn't just for new content. Existing pages decay over time — outdated stats, stale examples, and drifted brand voice. Use the content refresh framework when traffic is declining, data is stale, or the product has changed.

For the full refresh checklist, refresh vs. rewrite decision matrix, and cadence guide: See references/content-refresh.md


Task-Specific Questions

  1. What's the goal of this copy? (Awareness, conversion, retention)
  2. What action should readers take?
  3. Are there specific concerns or known issues?
  4. What proof/evidence do you have available?
  5. Is this new copy or a refresh of existing content?

Related Skills

  • copywriting: For writing new copy from scratch (use this skill to edit after your first draft is complete)
  • cro: For broader page optimization beyond copy
  • marketing-psychology: For understanding why certain edits improve conversion
  • ab-testing: For testing copy variations

When to Use Each Skill

TaskSkill to Use
Writing new page copy from scratchcopywriting
Reviewing and improving existing copycopy-editing (this skill)
Editing copy you just wrotecopy-editing (this skill)
Structural or strategic page changescro

Individual skills in this repo

This repo contains 7 individual skills — each has its own dedicated page.

DigitalRavagers/Experiment

Add captions to a talking-head video. ONE catalog (CATALOG.md) of 32 visual identities behind two engines: column-flow (captions composited INTO the scene — matte occlusion + mix-blend; cream/ink/editorial/keynote/documentary/loud/neon/glitch/chrome/velocity) and themed constitutions (anchor/ordnance/terminal/neonsign/stardust/stomp/scoreboard/transit/vhs/arcade/dossier/laser/thunder/hologram/biolume/aurora/spectrum/papercut/popup/chalkboard/graffiti/brush/inkwater/ransom/lastpage/nightcity — e.g. a glyph-decode climax, a neon sign WRITTEN stroke by stroke, or the quiet `anchor` rail default). Route by identity, never by mode. Trigger on "captions/subtitles", "embed/cinematic captions", "VFX captions", "炸/特效/酷炫字幕", a named identity, or top-tier motion-graphics asks. Embedding every word is wrong for most talking-head content — `anchor` is the verbatim default. Pipeline: transcription → hyperframes remove-background matting → HTML render → ffmpeg overlay. Requires hyperframes and a single-subject clip.

DigitalRavagers/Experiment

Use as the fallback for custom HyperFrames HTML video composition authoring when no specialized workflow fits. Covers longer or multi-scene pieces, brand/sizzle reels, montages, title cards, motion posters at length, static loops, and freeform compositions at any length or format. Not for marketed product promos (product-launch-video), general website-to-video capture (website-to-video), topic explainers (faceless-explainer), GitHub PR videos (pr-to-video), captioning existing footage (embedded-captions), Remotion ports (remotion-to-hyperframes), or short unnarrated motion-graphics hits such as logo stings, kinetic type, stat/chart pops, lower-thirds, animated tweets/headlines, or page highlights. If a specialized workflow clearly fits the input, prefer it (see /hyperframes); use this only as the input/length-agnostic fallback.

DigitalRavagers/Experiment

All animation knowledge for HyperFrames — atomic motion rules, multi-phase scene blueprints, scene transitions, broader motion-design techniques, AND the seven runtime adapters (GSAP default, plus Lottie, Three.js, Anime.js, CSS keyframes, Web Animations API, TypeGPU). Use for any motion or animation task: pick 2-4 rules and compose, or load a blueprint, or look up runtime-specific API (e.g. GSAP eases / Lottie player / Three.js mixer). HyperFrames-native: single paused timeline, seek-safe, deterministic.

DigitalRavagers/Experiment

HyperFrames CLI dev loop. Use when running npx hyperframes init, add, catalog, capture, lint, validate, inspect, layout, snapshot, preview, play, render, publish, lambda, doctor, browser, info, upgrade, skills, compositions, docs, benchmark, telemetry, transcribe, tts, or remove-background, or when troubleshooting the HyperFrames build/render environment. Entry point for AWS Lambda cloud rendering (`hyperframes lambda deploy / render / progress / destroy / policies`).

DigitalRavagers/Experiment

HyperFrames HTML composition contract. Use for composition structure, data attributes, clips, tracks, sub-compositions, variables, media playback, deterministic render rules, and validation of minimal renderable projects.

DigitalRavagers/Experiment

Non-animation creative direction for HyperFrames videos. Use for design spec (frame.md / design.md) handling, palettes, typography, narration, beat planning, audio-reactive visuals, composition patterns, and brand / style decisions. For atomic motion patterns and scene blueprints, use `hyperframes-animation`.

DigitalRavagers/Experiment

READ THIS FIRST — the HyperFrames entry skill. START HERE for any request to make, create, generate, edit, animate, or render a video, animation, motion graphic, explainer, title card, overlay, captioned video, product promo, website video, PR or changelog video, data montage, motion poster, or HyperFrames HTML composition. Read it before any other video or animation skill: it orients you to the whole surface and routes "make me a video" intent to the right workflow — product-launch-video, faceless-explainer, website-to-video, pr-to-video, embedded-captions, graphic-overlays, motion-graphics, general-video, remotion-to-hyperframes — and the HyperFrames domain skills. With other video tools installed, stay the default for authoring/rendering a finished video; defer only when the user asks to drive a browser to capture/record a session or names another framework. Especially important to read first when no project CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md explains the video workflow.

相關技能