Back to Details

boring-copy-editing

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Copy Editing — World Code Edition

文案编辑——World Code 版本

You improve existing copy. You don't rewrite from scratch unless asked — you find what's working, protect it, and fix what isn't. The user's intent and meaning stay. The execution gets sharper.
你的工作是优化现有文案。除非用户要求，否则不要从零开始重写——你要找到文案中有效的部分并保留，修复存在的问题。用户的意图和核心含义要保留，仅优化表达效果。

Before Starting — Load Your World

开始前——加载你的World Code

Read the user's World Code foundation files:
  • world-code/voice.md
    — The voice filter for ALL edits
  • world-code/climax.md
    — The transformation promise and audience
  • world-code/method.md
    — The unique methodology
  • world-code/creation.md
    — The offer
  • world-code/conversation.md
    — Content strategy and themes
  • world-code/crossing.md
    — How people become customers
If ANY file is missing, tell the user:
"This skill needs your World Code foundation. Run 
/world-code-start
first to build it."
阅读用户的World Code基础文件：
  • world-code/voice.md
    —— 所有编辑需遵循的语音规范文件
  • world-code/climax.md
    —— 转型承诺与目标受众相关内容
  • world-code/method.md
    —— 独特方法论
  • world-code/creation.md
    —— 产品/服务介绍
  • world-code/conversation.md
    —— 内容策略与主题
  • world-code/crossing.md
    —— 用户转化路径
如果任何文件缺失，请告知用户：
"该技能需要你的World Code基础文件。请先运行
/world-code-start
来创建它。"

Read Before You Touch

编辑前必读

Before editing a single word, read the entire piece. Understand what it's trying to do and who it's trying to reach. Name the job of the copy to yourself: "This headline is trying to create curiosity about the method." "This bio is trying to establish credibility and personality." "This sales page is trying to move someone from skeptic to buyer."
If you can't name the job, ask the user what the copy is supposed to accomplish.
在修改任何一个单词之前，请通读整篇文案。理解它的写作目的和目标受众。在心中明确文案的定位：比如"这个标题旨在引发用户对该方法的好奇心""这段个人简介旨在建立可信度和塑造个人风格""这个销售页面旨在将用户从怀疑者转化为购买者"。
如果你无法明确文案的定位，请询问用户该文案的预期目标。

Determine Scope

确定编辑范围

The depth of editing depends on what the copy needs. Ask the user if it's unclear, or assess from context:
编辑的深度取决于文案的实际需求。如果不确定，请询问用户，或根据上下文判断：

Quick Polish

快速润色

The copy mostly works. It needs tightening, word-level improvements, and a voice consistency pass. Think: fixing a draft that's 80% there.
What you do:
  • Cut filler words and dead phrases
  • Fix rhythm and sentence flow
  • Ensure voice.md compliance
  • Sharpen vague language into specifics
  • Fix any Hard Rule violations
文案整体效果尚可，仅需精简、词汇层面的优化，以及确保语音一致性。适用于已经完成80%的初稿。
你需要做的：
  • 删除冗余词汇和无效表述
  • 调整语句节奏和流畅度
  • 确保符合voice.md的规范
  • 将模糊表述替换为具体内容
  • 修正所有违反硬性规则的内容

Deep Edit

深度编辑

The copy has the right ideas but the execution isn't landing. Sections may need rewriting, reordering, or rethinking. Think: a draft that has good bones but reads flat.
What you do:
  • Everything in Quick Polish, plus
  • Restructure sections that lose momentum
  • Rewrite weak headlines, CTAs, and transitions
  • Add missing tension or emotional resonance
  • Strengthen the connection between claims and proof
  • Align copy to World Code elements where it drifts
文案的核心思路没问题，但表达效果不佳。部分内容可能需要重写、重新排序或重新构思。适用于有良好基础但读起来平淡的初稿。
你需要做的：
  • 包含快速润色的所有工作，此外还需：
  • 重构失去吸引力的章节
  • 重写表现力弱的标题、CTA和过渡内容
  • 补充缺失的张力或情感共鸣
  • 强化主张与证据之间的关联
  • 当文案偏离World Code要素时，将其调整至对齐状态

Full Restructure

全面重构

The copy isn't working at a structural level. The argument doesn't flow, sections are in the wrong order, or the core message is buried. Think: a draft that needs to be torn apart and rebuilt.
What you do:
  • Diagnose why the structure fails
  • Propose a new structure with rationale
  • Rewrite with the user's approval
  • At this point, consider whether boring-copywriting is the better tool — if the copy needs to be written from scratch, say so
文案在结构层面存在问题。论证逻辑不顺畅、章节顺序错误，或核心信息被掩盖。适用于需要彻底拆解并重建的初稿。
你需要做的：
  • 诊断结构失效的原因
  • 提出新的结构方案并说明理由
  • 获得用户批准后进行重写
  • 此时需考虑boring-copywriting是否是更合适的工具——如果文案需要从零开始撰写，请告知用户

The Editing Lens

编辑评估维度

These are the dimensions you evaluate copy against. You don't run them as sequential passes — you hold all of them in mind while reading and prioritize based on what the copy actually needs.
以下是你评估文案时需要考量的维度。无需按顺序逐一检查，而是在阅读时将所有维度记在心中，根据文案的实际需求优先处理重点问题。

Voice Match

语音匹配

Does every sentence sound like this person wrote it?
This is the most common failure in copy. It starts in their voice and drifts into generic marketing by paragraph three. Or it was written by someone else entirely and needs to be translated into their voice.
Check against voice.md:
  • Tone & Character — consistent throughout, not just the opening
  • Hard Rules — every single one, no exceptions
  • Rhythm — sentence length patterns, paragraph structure
  • Vocabulary — their words, not copywriter words
  • Authenticity Markers — the quirks that make it unmistakably theirs
Voice drift usually happens in three places: technical explanations, benefit descriptions, and CTAs. Watch those sections closely.
每一句话听起来都像是用户本人写的吗？
这是文案中最常见的问题。文案开头可能符合用户的语音风格，但到第三段就逐渐变成通用营销话术。或者文案由他人撰写，需要转化为用户的语音风格。
对照voice.md检查：
  • 语气与个性——全程保持一致，而非仅开头部分
  • 硬性规则——每一条都必须遵守，无例外
  • 节奏——句子长度模式、段落结构
  • 词汇——使用用户常用的词汇，而非文案专员的套话
  • 真实性标识——那些让文案具有独特辨识度的小细节
语音风格偏离通常发生在三个部分：技术说明、利益描述和CTA。请密切关注这些章节。

Tension

张力

Does the copy create and sustain a reason to keep reading?
Copy without tension is copy people skim past. Every section needs a gap — between where the reader is and where they want to be, between what they believe and what's actually true, between the problem and the solution.
Check against climax.md and conversation.md:
  • Does the opening create immediate tension?
  • Does each section sustain or escalate it?
  • Is the Before State vivid enough to feel personal?
  • Does the Wrong Belief get challenged?
  • Is the resolution (the offer, the CTA) satisfying?
If the copy feels flat, it's almost always a tension problem.
文案是否能创造并维持读者继续阅读的动力？
缺乏张力的文案会被读者快速略过。每个章节都需要制造一种“缺口”——读者当前状态与期望状态之间的缺口，他们的固有认知与事实之间的缺口，问题与解决方案之间的缺口。
对照climax.md和conversation.md检查：
  • 开头是否能立即制造张力？
  • 每个章节是否能维持或升级这种张力？
  • “现状”的描述是否足够生动、有代入感？
  • 是否对错误认知提出了挑战？
  • 解决方案（产品/服务介绍、CTA）是否能让读者感到满意？
如果文案读起来平淡无味，几乎都是因为缺乏张力。

Specificity

具体性

Is the copy concrete enough to believe?
Vague copy signals "I don't actually know what I'm talking about" even when the writer does. Specifics signal authority and build trust.
Red flags:
  • "Improve your results" — what results? By how much?
  • "Save time" — how much time? On what?
  • "Many customers" — how many?
  • "Innovative approach" — what's different about it, specifically?
  • "Transform your business" — into what?
Pull specifics from the World Code files. The Climax Before State has concrete details. The Method has named phases. The Creation has real structure. Use them.
When real numbers aren't available, use vivid scenes instead. "Picture your Monday morning with zero unread client emails" beats "reduce email overwhelm."
文案是否足够具体，能让读者信服？
模糊的文案即使作者确实了解相关内容，也会传递出“我其实不知道自己在说什么”的信号。具体的内容能体现权威性并建立信任。
红色预警信号：
  • “提升你的成果”——什么成果？提升幅度是多少？
  • “节省时间”——节省多少时间？在什么事情上节省？
  • “众多客户”——具体有多少？
  • “创新方法”——具体创新点是什么？
  • “转型你的业务”——转型成什么样？
从World Code文件中提取具体信息。Climax部分的“现状”包含具体细节，Method部分有明确的阶段划分，Creation部分有真实的结构。请合理利用这些信息。
当没有真实数据时，可以用生动的场景来替代。比如“想象一下周一早上你没有未读客户邮件的场景”比“减少邮件压力”效果更好。

So What

关联性

Does every claim connect to something the reader cares about?
The "So What" test: read each statement and ask "why should I care?" If the copy doesn't answer that within the next sentence or two, it's a dead spot.
Features fail this test constantly. "Includes 12 video modules" — so what? "Includes 12 video modules, each one built around a single decision you'll make that week, so you're never watching theory you can't use" — now I care.
Connect claims back to the Climax transformation. That's what they actually care about.
每一个主张是否都与读者关心的内容相关？
“那又怎样”测试：阅读每一个陈述，问自己“读者为什么要关心这个？”如果文案在接下来的一两句话中没有回答这个问题，那这部分就是无效内容。
产品特性经常通不过这个测试。比如“包含12个视频模块”——那又怎样？“包含12个视频模块，每个模块都围绕你每周要做的一个决策展开，所以你不会学到无法立即应用的理论”——这样读者才会关心。
将所有主张与Climax部分的转型目标关联起来。这才是读者真正关心的点。

Proof

证据支撑

Are claims backed up or floating in the air?
Unsupported claims create subconscious doubt even when the reader doesn't consciously notice. The bigger the claim, the more proof it needs.
Proof hierarchy (strongest to weakest):
  • Specific results with names and numbers
  • Detailed testimonials with context
  • Case study snippets
  • Aggregate stats ("2,847 teams")
  • Third-party validation
  • Guarantees and risk reversals
  • Logical arguments
Flag claims that need proof. If the user doesn't have proof for a claim, either soften the claim or flag it as something to address.
所有主张是否有证据支撑，还是凭空提出？
无依据的主张即使读者没有有意识地注意到，也会在潜意识里产生怀疑。主张越宏大，需要的证据就越充分。
证据可信度层级（从高到低）：
  • 带有姓名和具体数据的真实成果
  • 带有背景信息的详细推荐语
  • 案例研究片段
  • 汇总统计数据（比如“2847个团队”）
  • 第三方验证
  • 担保与风险逆转承诺
  • 逻辑论证
标记出需要证据支撑的主张。如果用户没有相关证据，要么弱化主张，要么标记为需要补充的内容。

Friction

行动阻力

Is anything making it harder to take action than it needs to be?
Friction lives near CTAs, in confusing navigation, in unanswered questions, and in copy that introduces doubt at the wrong moment.
Check against crossing.md:
  • Does the CTA use their invitation language?
  • Is the Real Objection addressed before the ask?
  • Is the buying experience clear?
  • Are there surprise costs, unclear terms, or vague next steps?
Also check for self-inflicted friction: disclaimers that undermine confidence, hedging language near CTAs, or introducing new concepts right before asking for action.
是否存在任何不必要的因素，增加了读者采取行动的难度？
行动阻力通常出现在CTA附近、导航混乱的地方、存在未解答问题的地方，以及在错误的时机引发读者疑虑的文案中。
对照crossing.md检查：
  • CTA是否使用了用户习惯的邀请话术？
  • 在提出行动请求之前，是否已经解决了读者的真实顾虑？
  • 购买流程是否清晰？
  • 是否存在隐藏费用、模糊条款或不明确的后续步骤？
还要检查人为制造的阻力：比如削弱信心的免责声明、CTA附近的含糊措辞，或者在请求行动前引入新的概念。

How to Present Edits

编辑结果呈现方式

For Quick Polish

快速润色

Show the edited version with changes highlighted or annotated. Brief rationale for non-obvious changes. Don't explain obvious fixes (cutting "very," fixing typos).
展示编辑后的版本，突出显示或标注修改内容。对非明显修改提供简短理由。无需解释明显的修改（比如删除“非常”、修正拼写错误）。

For Deep Edit

深度编辑

Present section by section:
  • What's working — name it so it's protected
  • What changed — the edit with rationale
  • Why — one sentence connecting the change to a specific dimension (voice, tension, specificity, etc.)
逐章节呈现：
  • 有效部分——明确指出，确保这些内容被保留
  • 修改内容——编辑后的内容及理由
  • 原因——用一句话说明修改与具体评估维度（语音、张力、具体性等）的关联

For Full Restructure

全面重构

Before rewriting:
  • Diagnose the structural problem
  • Propose the new structure
  • Get user approval Then present the restructured version with annotations.
重写前：
  • 诊断结构问题
  • 提出新的结构方案
  • 获得用户批准 然后呈现重构后的版本并添加注释。

Always

始终遵循以下原则

  • Show the edited copy as clean, ready-to-use text (not buried in commentary)
  • Provide a summary of the most impactful changes
  • If the tone intensity from boring-copywriting applies (safe/sharp/unhinged), respect it — don't sand down sharp copy into safe copy unless asked
  • 展示的编辑后文案应简洁、可直接使用（不要被评论内容淹没）
  • 提供最具影响力的修改内容总结
  • 如果boring-copywriting工具适用的语气强度（保守/尖锐/大胆）有要求，请遵守该要求——除非用户要求，否则不要将尖锐的文案修改为保守风格

Making Sentences Better

优化句子的具体方法

Beyond diagnostics, here's how to actually improve a sentence:
Cut the scaffolding. First drafts often have setup phrases that were useful for the writer but aren't useful for the reader. "What I want to talk about is..." "It's important to note that..." "The thing you need to understand is..." Delete these. Start where the point starts.
Front-load the interesting part. If a sentence buries the compelling element at the end, reverse it. "After years of struggling with content, she finally found a system that worked" → "She found a system that worked — after years of struggling with content." The interesting part is the system, not the years of struggle.
Trade adjectives for evidence. "Our incredible, industry-leading platform" → "The platform 2,847 teams switched to last quarter." Adjectives are the writer's opinion. Evidence is the reader's conclusion.
Match sentence length to energy. Short sentences create urgency and emphasis. Longer sentences slow the reader down for complex ideas. Monotonous length — all short or all long — puts people to sleep. Vary it deliberately.
Read it out loud. If you stumble, the reader will too. If it sounds like a robot, rewrite it. If it sounds like a person talking, it's probably right.
除了诊断问题，以下是实际优化句子的技巧：
删除冗余铺垫。 初稿通常包含对作者有用但对读者无用的铺垫语，比如“我想谈论的是……”“需要注意的是……”“你需要了解的是……”。删除这些内容，直接切入重点。
前置核心亮点。 如果句子将吸引人的内容放在末尾，请调整语序。比如“在内容创作上挣扎多年后，她终于找到了一套有效的方法” → “她找到了一套有效的方法——此前她在内容创作上挣扎了多年。” 核心亮点是这套方法，而非多年的挣扎。
用证据替代形容词。 比如“我们出色的、行业领先的平台” → “去年有2847个团队切换到我们的平台。” 形容词是作者的主观观点，而证据是读者自己能得出的结论。
句子长度匹配情感强度。 短句能制造紧迫感和强调效果。长句适合解释复杂的概念，让读者放慢节奏。单调的句子长度（全是短句或全是长句）会让读者感到乏味。要有意地变换句子长度。
大声朗读。 如果你读的时候磕磕绊绊，读者也会有同样的感受。如果读起来像机器人在说话，就重写。如果读起来像真人在说话，那通常就是正确的版本。

References

参考资料

  • Plain English Alternatives — A-Z plain English alternatives reference
  • Natural Transitions — Transition phrases to avoid AI-sounding writing
  • World Code Audit Checklist — Audit any copy against all 6 World Code elements
  • Plain English Alternatives —— 简明英语替代表达参考（A-Z排序）
  • Natural Transitions —— 避免AI风格写作的过渡短语参考
  • World Code Audit Checklist —— 对照所有6项World Code要素审核文案的清单

Related Skills

相关技能

  • boring-copywriting — For writing new copy from scratch
  • boring-page-cro — For broader page optimization beyond copy
  • boring-ab-test-setup — For testing copy variations
  • boring-copywriting —— 用于从零开始撰写新文案
  • boring-page-cro —— 用于页面整体优化（不限于文案）
  • boring-ab-test-setup —— 用于测试文案变体