---
name: copy-editing
description: >
  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.
license: MIT
metadata:
  version: 1.0.0
  author: borghei
  category: marketing
  domain: copywriting
  updated: 2026-03-09
---
# Copy Editing

Systematic copy improvement through focused editorial passes that enhance clarity, voice, proof, and conversion impact.

---

## Table of Contents

- [Keywords](#keywords)
- [Quick Start](#quick-start)
- [The Seven Sweeps Framework](#the-seven-sweeps-framework)
- [Quick-Pass Editing Guide](#quick-pass-editing-guide)
- [Common Copy Problems and Fixes](#common-copy-problems-and-fixes)
- [Style Consistency Standards](#style-consistency-standards)
- [Fact-Checking Protocol](#fact-checking-protocol)
- [Editorial Checklist](#editorial-checklist)
- [Best Practices](#best-practices)
- [Integration Points](#integration-points)

---

## 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:

- [ ] **Goal & desired action** — what the copy must get the reader to do (prioritizes the CTA / Zero Risk sweep)
- [ ] **Target audience** — who reads it and their awareness level (calibrates the So What, Specificity, and Emotion sweeps)
- [ ] **Voice & style standard** — brand voice or an existing style guide (drives the Voice and Style Consistency sweeps)
- [ ] **Edit depth** — full Seven Sweeps or a quick polish pass (sets the scope of the review)

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)

1. Read through once without editing to understand the whole piece
2. Sweep 1 — Clarity: flag confusing sentences, unclear references, jargon
3. Sweep 2 — Voice and Tone: flag shifts in formality, personality inconsistencies
4. Sweep 3 — So What: flag features without benefits, claims without consequences
5. Sweep 4 — Prove It: flag unsubstantiated claims, missing social proof
6. Sweep 5 — Specificity: flag vague language, round numbers, generic statements
7. Sweep 6 — Heightened Emotion: strengthen pain points, aspirations, urgency
8. Sweep 7 — Zero Risk: remove barriers near CTAs, add trust signals

### Quick Copy Pass

1. Cut filler words (very, really, just, actually, basically)
2. Replace weak verbs (utilize > use, facilitate > help, leverage > use)
3. Fix passive voice (reports are generated > we generate reports)
4. Verify one idea per sentence, one topic per paragraph
5. 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:**
- [ ] What happens after clicking is clear (not a mystery)
- [ ] Objections addressed within 2 scrolls of the CTA
- [ ] Trust signals visible (guarantee, certifications, customer count)
- [ ] Next steps are specific ("Start your 14-day free trial" not "Get started")
- [ ] Risk reversals stated explicitly (money-back, no CC, cancel anytime)
- [ ] Privacy concerns addressed if form collects data

**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

- [ ] Oxford comma: used consistently (or consistently omitted)
- [ ] Contractions: consistent usage throughout
- [ ] Heading case: consistent (sentence case or title case, not mixed)
- [ ] Number style: consistent (spell out 1-9, numerals for 10+, or chosen standard)
- [ ] Date format: consistent (March 9, 2026 or 2026-03-09, not mixed)
- [ ] Brand name: capitalized and formatted consistently
- [ ] Product/feature names: capitalized consistently per brand standards
- [ ] Bulleted lists: consistent punctuation (periods or no periods)
- [ ] Acronyms: spelled out on first use in each document
- [ ] Em dashes, en dashes, hyphens: used correctly and consistently
- [ ] Quotation marks: consistent style (straight or curly)

### 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

- [ ] All statistics have a named source and year
- [ ] Customer testimonials are attributed to real, named individuals
- [ ] Customer logos are used with permission
- [ ] Competitive claims are accurate and current
- [ ] Product capabilities described are actually available (not roadmap items)
- [ ] Pricing is current and matches the pricing page
- [ ] Certifications and compliance claims are active (SOC 2, GDPR, etc.)
- [ ] Awards and recognition are current year or specified year
- [ ] Integration claims list actual integrations, not aspirational ones
- [ ] Uptime/SLA claims match the actual SLA

### 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

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

### During Edit (Seven Sweeps Summary)

- [ ] Sweep 1: Every sentence is immediately understandable
- [ ] Sweep 2: Voice is consistent throughout
- [ ] Sweep 3: Every feature connects to a benefit
- [ ] Sweep 4: Claims are substantiated with evidence
- [ ] Sweep 5: Vague words replaced with specifics
- [ ] Sweep 6: Copy evokes appropriate emotion
- [ ] Sweep 7: Barriers to action removed near CTAs

### Post-Edit

- [ ] No typos or grammatical errors
- [ ] Consistent formatting throughout
- [ ] Core message preserved through all edits
- [ ] All links functional (if applicable)
- [ ] Consistent style applied (see style checklist)

---

## Best Practices

1. **Edit in passes, not all at once** — Trying to fix everything in one read misses issues. Each sweep catches what the others miss.

2. **Preserve the author's voice** — Good copy editing enhances; it does not replace. Maintain the original voice while improving clarity and impact.

3. **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."

4. **Prioritize by conversion impact** — Fix the CTA before fixing a comma. Fix the headline before fixing paragraph 12.

5. **Read aloud** — Voice and rhythm problems become obvious when read aloud. If it sounds wrong spoken, it reads wrong too.

6. **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.

7. **Re-check previous sweeps** — Each sweep can introduce issues caught by earlier sweeps. Always go back.

8. **Cut first, add second** — Most marketing copy is 20-30% too long. Cut the fat before adding new content.

9. **Get context before editing** — A copy edit without knowing the audience, goal, and voice standard produces misaligned feedback.

10. **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

```bash
# 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
```