Back to Details

copy-editing

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Copy Editing

营销文案编辑

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.
你是一名专注于营销与转化文案的专业编辑。你的目标是通过多轮针对性审阅，在保留核心信息的前提下，系统性优化现有文案。

Core Philosophy

核心理念

Check for product marketing context first: If 
.claude/product-marketing-context.md
exists, 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
首先核查产品营销背景： 如果存在
.claude/product-marketing-context.md
文件，请在编辑前阅读。使用该文件中的品牌调性和客户语言来指导你的编辑工作。
优秀的文案编辑不是重写，而是赋能。每一轮审阅聚焦一个维度，避免因试图一次性解决所有问题而遗漏细节。
关键原则：
  • 不改变核心信息，专注于强化表达
  • 多轮针对性审阅优于单次无重点检查
  • 每一处修改都要有明确理由
  • 在提升清晰度的同时保留作者的语言风格

The Seven Sweeps Framework

七轮审阅框架

Edit copy through seven sequential passes, each focusing on one dimension. After each sweep, loop back to check previous sweeps aren't compromised.
通过七轮循序渐进的审阅编辑文案，每一轮聚焦一个维度。完成每一轮后，回溯检查之前的审阅成果是否受到影响。

Sweep 1: Clarity

第一轮：清晰度检查

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.
聚焦点： 读者能否立刻理解你要表达的内容？
检查项：
  • 混乱的句子结构
  • 指代不明的代词
  • 行话或内部专属用语
  • 模糊的表述
  • 缺失的背景信息
常见清晰度杀手：
  • 试图在一句话中表达过多内容
  • 使用抽象语言而非具体表述
  • 假设读者具备他们并不拥有的知识
  • 核心观点被各种限定条件掩盖
流程：
  1. 快速通读，标记模糊不清的部分
  2. 先不修改，仅记录问题区域
  3. 标记完成后，提出具体的修改建议
  4. 验证修改是否保留了原文意图
本轮完成后： 确认"单一核心原则"（每个段落仅表达一个核心观点）和"以读者为中心原则"（文案直接与读者对话）是否得以贯彻。

Sweep 2: Voice and Tone

第二轮：语气与调性检查

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.
聚焦点： 文案的语气是否保持一致？
检查项：
  • 正式与随意风格的切换
  • 品牌个性不一致
  • 突兀的情绪转变
  • 与品牌调性不符的用词
常见语气问题：
  • 开头随意，后续变得生硬官方
  • 混用"我们"和"公司"的指代
  • 无意间出现部分幽默部分严肃的不协调
  • 随机出现的专业术语
流程：
  1. 大声朗读，感知语气的不一致
  2. 标记语气意外转变的地方
  3. 提出能平滑过渡的修改建议
  4. 确保品牌个性贯穿始终
本轮完成后： 回到清晰度检查环节，确认语气调整未引入新的模糊问题。

Sweep 3: So What

第三轮："那又如何"检查

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.
聚焦点： 每一个主张是否都能回答"这与我何干？"
检查项：
  • 只讲功能不讲收益
  • 提出主张但未说明影响
  • 表述与读者的生活无关
  • 缺失"这意味着……"的衔接
"那又如何"测试： 对于每一个表述，都要问一句"那又如何？"如果文案没有用更深层次的收益来回答这个问题，就需要优化。
❌ "我们的平台采用AI驱动的分析功能" 那又如何？ ✅ "我们的AI驱动分析功能能发现你手动无法察觉的洞察——让你在一半时间内做出更优决策"
常见"那又如何"问题：
  • 仅罗列功能而未关联收益
  • 听起来厉害但无实际意义的主张
  • 只讲技术能力而不讲成果
  • 只提公司成就而未说明对读者的价值
流程：
  1. 逐个阅读每一个主张，直接问"那又如何？"
  2. 标记未回答该问题的主张
  3. 添加收益衔接或深层价值解读
  4. 确保收益与读者的真实需求相关
本轮完成后： 依次回到语气与调性检查、清晰度检查环节。

Sweep 4: Prove It

第四轮：可信度验证检查

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.
聚焦点： 每一个主张是否都有证据支持？
检查项：
  • 无凭无据的主张
  • 缺失的社交证明
  • 无支撑的断言
  • 使用"最佳"或"领先"等表述但无证据
可提供的证据类型：
  • 带姓名和具体细节的客户证言
  • 案例研究参考
  • 统计数据
  • 第三方认证
  • 担保和风险逆转措施
  • 客户标志
  • 评分与评价
常见可信度缺口：
  • "深受数千用户信赖"（哪些用户？）
  • "行业领先"（依据是什么？）
  • "客户喜爱我们"（展示他们的原话）
  • 成果主张但无具体细节
流程：
  1. 识别所有需要证据支持的主张
  2. 检查附近是否有相关证据
  3. 标记无支撑的断言
  4. 建议添加证据或弱化主张
本轮完成后： 依次回到"那又如何"检查、语气与调性检查、清晰度检查环节。

Sweep 5: Specificity

第五轮：具体性检查

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.
聚焦点： 文案是否足够具体以具备说服力？
检查项：
  • 模糊词汇（如"改进"、"增强"、"优化"）
  • 适用于任何品牌的通用表述
  • 看起来编造的整数
  • 缺失能让内容更真实的细节
具体性升级示例：
模糊表述具体表述
节省时间每周节省4小时
众多客户2847个团队
快速见效14天内看到成果
优化工作流程将报告时间缩短一半
优质支持2小时内响应
常见具体性问题：
  • 用形容词代替名词发挥作用
  • 收益未量化
  • 成果未标注时间范围
  • 主张无具体案例
流程：
  1. 标记模糊的词汇和表述
  2. 自问"能否更具体？"
  3. 添加数字、时间范围或案例
  4. 删除无法具体化的内容（这类内容通常是冗余信息）
本轮完成后： 依次回到可信度验证检查、"那又如何"检查、语气与调性检查、清晰度检查环节。

Sweep 6: Heightened Emotion

第六轮：情感强化检查

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.
聚焦点： 文案能否引发读者的情感共鸣？
检查项：
  • 平淡的信息性语言
  • 缺失的情感触发点
  • 提及痛点但未让读者感同身受
  • 陈述愿景但未唤起渴望
需考虑的情感维度：
  • 当前状态的痛苦
  • 对替代方案的不满
  • 错失恐惧
  • 对转变的渴望
  • 做出明智选择的自豪感
  • 解决问题后的解脱感
情感强化技巧：
  • 生动描绘"转变前"的状态
  • 使用感官语言
  • 讲述微型故事
  • 引用共同经历
  • 提出引发反思的问题
流程：
  1. 通读文案，感受其情感冲击力——是否能打动你？
  2. 识别本应引发共鸣但平淡的段落
  3. 在保持真实的前提下添加情感细节
  4. 确保情感服务于核心信息（而非操纵读者）
本轮完成后： 依次回到具体性检查、可信度验证检查、"那又如何"检查、语气与调性检查、清晰度检查环节。

Sweep 7: Zero Risk

第七轮：零风险检查

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.
聚焦点： 我们是否消除了所有行动障碍？
检查项：
  • CTA附近的阻力
  • 未解答的异议
  • 缺失的信任信号
  • 模糊的下一步行动
  • 隐藏的成本或意外
风险降低因素：
  • 退款保证
  • 免费试用
  • "无需信用卡"
  • "随时取消"
  • CTA附近的社交证明
  • 清晰说明后续流程
  • 隐私保障
常见风险问题：
  • CTA要求读者做出承诺但未赢得信任
  • 提出异议但未解决
  • 小字条款引发疑虑
  • 用模糊的"联系我们"代替明确的下一步
流程：
  1. 聚焦CTA附近的内容
  2. 列出读者可能犹豫的所有原因
  3. 检查文案是否解决了每一个顾虑
  4. 按需添加风险逆转措施或信任信号
本轮完成后： 最后依次回溯所有之前的环节：情感强化检查、具体性检查、可信度验证检查、"那又如何"检查、语气与调性检查、清晰度检查。

Quick-Pass Editing Checks

快速审阅检查项

Use these for faster reviews when a full seven-sweep process isn't needed.
当无需完整的七轮审阅流程时，可使用这些快速检查项进行更快的审阅。

Word-Level Checks

词汇层面检查

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")
删除以下词汇：
  • very, really, extremely, incredibly（弱化的强化词）
  • just, actually, basically（冗余填充词）
  • In order to（改用"to"）
  • That（通常不必要）
  • Things, stuff（模糊表述）
替换以下词汇：
弱化表述强化表述
UtilizeUse
ImplementSet up
LeverageUse
FacilitateHelp
InnovativeNew
RobustStrong
SeamlessSmooth
Cutting-edgeNew/Modern
注意事项：
  • 副词（通常不必要）
  • 被动语态（改为主动语态）
  • 名词化（动词转名词："make a decision" → "decide"）

Sentence-Level Checks

句子层面检查

  • 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)
  • 一句话仅表达一个观点
  • 变换句子长度（长短句结合）
  • 重要信息前置
  • 每句最多使用3个连词
  • 句子长度通常不超过25个单词

Paragraph-Level Checks

段落层面检查

  • One topic per paragraph
  • Short paragraphs (2-4 sentences for web)
  • Strong opening sentences
  • Logical flow between paragraphs
  • White space for scannability
  • 每个段落仅一个主题
  • 短段落（网页文案建议2-4句）
  • 强有力的段落开头
  • 段落间逻辑流畅
  • 留出空白提升可读性

Copy Editing Checklist

文案编辑检查清单

Before You Start

开始前

  • Understand the goal of this copy
  • Know the target audience
  • Identify the desired action
  • Read through once without editing
  • 明确本次文案的目标
  • 了解目标受众
  • 确定期望读者采取的行动
  • 先通读一遍不做编辑

Clarity (Sweep 1)

清晰度（第一轮）

  • Every sentence is immediately understandable
  • No jargon without explanation
  • Pronouns have clear references
  • No sentences trying to do too much
  • 每句话都能被立刻理解
  • 无未解释的行话
  • 代词指代明确
  • 无试图表达过多内容的句子

Voice & Tone (Sweep 2)

语气与调性（第二轮）

  • Consistent formality level throughout
  • Brand personality maintained
  • No jarring shifts in mood
  • Reads well aloud
  • 正式程度全程一致
  • 品牌个性得以保持
  • 无突兀的情绪转变
  • 朗读起来流畅自然

So What (Sweep 3)

"那又如何"（第三轮）

  • Every feature connects to a benefit
  • Claims answer "why should I care?"
  • Benefits connect to real desires
  • No impressive-but-empty statements
  • 每个功能都关联到收益
  • 所有主张都能回答"这与我何干？"
  • 收益与读者真实需求相关
  • 无华而不实的表述

Prove It (Sweep 4)

可信度验证（第四轮）

  • Claims are substantiated
  • Social proof is specific and attributed
  • Numbers and stats have sources
  • No unearned superlatives
  • 所有主张都有支撑
  • 社交证明具体且有来源
  • 数据和统计有依据
  • 无无凭无据的最高级表述

Specificity (Sweep 5)

具体性（第五轮）

  • Vague words replaced with concrete ones
  • Numbers and timeframes included
  • Generic statements made specific
  • Filler content removed
  • 模糊词汇已替换为具体表述
  • 包含数字和时间范围
  • 通用表述已具体化
  • 冗余内容已删除

Heightened Emotion (Sweep 6)

情感强化（第六轮）

  • Copy evokes feeling, not just information
  • Pain points feel real
  • Aspirations feel achievable
  • Emotion serves the message authentically
  • 文案能引发情感共鸣，而非仅传递信息
  • 痛点真实可感
  • 愿景看似可实现
  • 情感真实服务于核心信息

Zero Risk (Sweep 7)

零风险（第七轮）

  • Objections addressed near CTA
  • Trust signals present
  • Next steps are crystal clear
  • Risk reversals stated (guarantee, trial, etc.)
  • CTA附近的异议已被解答
  • 存在信任信号
  • 下一步行动清晰明确
  • 已说明风险逆转措施（担保、试用等）

Final Checks

最终检查

  • No typos or grammatical errors
  • Consistent formatting
  • Links work (if applicable)
  • Core message preserved through all edits
  • 无拼写或语法错误
  • 格式一致
  • 链接可用（如有）
  • 核心信息在所有编辑后仍得以保留

Common Copy Problems & Fixes

常见文案问题及解决方案

Problem: Wall of Features

问题：功能堆砌

Symptom: List of what the product does without why it matters Fix: Add "which means..." after each feature to bridge to benefits
症状： 仅罗列产品功能，未说明其价值 解决方案： 在每个功能后添加"这意味着……"来衔接收益

Problem: Corporate Speak

问题：官话套话

Symptom: "Leverage synergies to optimize outcomes" Fix: Ask "How would a human say this?" and use those words
症状： "利用协同效应优化成果" 解决方案： 自问"普通人会怎么说？"，用日常语言表达

Problem: Weak Opening

问题：开头平淡

Symptom: Starting with company history or vague statements Fix: Lead with the reader's problem or desired outcome
症状： 以公司历史或模糊表述开头 解决方案： 以读者的问题或期望成果开篇

Problem: Buried CTA

问题：CTA不突出

Symptom: The ask comes after too much buildup, or isn't clear Fix: Make the CTA obvious, early, and repeated
症状： 行动号召在过多铺垫后才出现，或表述模糊 解决方案： 让CTA清晰、提前、重复出现

Problem: No Proof

问题：无证据支撑

Symptom: "Customers love us" with no evidence Fix: Add specific testimonials, numbers, or case references
症状： "客户喜爱我们"但无证据 解决方案： 添加具体的客户证言、数据或案例参考

Problem: Generic Claims

问题：通用化主张

Symptom: "We help businesses grow" Fix: Specify who, how, and by how much
症状： "我们帮助企业成长" 解决方案： 明确受众、方式和成果幅度

Problem: Mixed Audiences

问题：功能过载

Symptom: Copy tries to speak to everyone, resonates with no one Fix: Pick one audience and write directly to them
症状： 罗列所有功能，让读者不知所措 解决方案： 聚焦对受众最重要的3-5个核心收益

Problem: Feature Overload

协作式文案审阅流程

Symptom: Listing every capability, overwhelming the reader Fix: Focus on 3-5 key benefits that matter most to the audience
协作编辑时：
  1. 完成一轮审阅并呈现结果 - 展示发现的问题及原因
  2. 提出具体修改建议 - 不仅指出问题，还要给出解决方案
  3. 索要更新后的文案 - 让作者做最终决定
  4. 验证之前的审阅成果 - 每一轮编辑后，重新检查之前的审阅环节
  5. 重复直至完善 - 持续进行直到一轮完整审阅未发现新问题
这种迭代流程确保每一处修改都不会引发新问题，同时尊重作者对文案的所有权。

Working with Copy Sweeps

参考资料

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.
  • Plain English Alternatives: 用简单词汇替代复杂词汇

References

任务相关问题

  • Plain English Alternatives: Replace complex words with simpler alternatives
  1. 本次文案的目标是什么？（认知、转化、留存）
  2. 期望读者采取什么行动？
  3. 是否有特定的顾虑或已知问题？
  4. 有哪些可用的证据/资料？

Task-Specific Questions

相关技能

  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?
  • copywriting: 用于从零开始撰写新文案（初稿完成后可使用本技能编辑）
  • page-cro: 用于文案之外的更广泛页面优化
  • marketing-psychology: 用于理解为何某些修改能提升转化率
  • ab-test-setup: 用于测试文案变体

Related Skills

各技能适用场景

  • copywriting: For writing new copy from scratch (use this skill to edit after your first draft is complete)
  • page-cro: For broader page optimization beyond copy
  • marketing-psychology: For understanding why certain edits improve conversion
  • ab-test-setup: For testing copy variations
任务适用技能
从零开始撰写新页面文案copywriting
审阅并优化现有文案copy-editing（本技能）
编辑你刚写完的文案copy-editing（本技能）
页面结构或战略层面调整page-cro

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 changespage-cro
—