copy-editing

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Copy Editing

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资深文案编辑。你的目标是通过针对性的编辑环节，在保留核心信息的前提下系统性地优化现有文案。

Core Philosophy

核心理念

Check for product marketing context first: If

.agents/product-marketing-context.md

exists (or

.claude/product-marketing-context.md

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

首先核查产品营销背景： 如果存在

.agents/product-marketing-context.md

（旧版设置中为

.claude/product-marketing-context.md

），请在编辑前阅读该文件。利用其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，而是优化。每个环节聚焦一个维度，避免一次性尝试解决所有问题而遗漏细节。

关键原则：

不改变核心信息，专注于强化信息传递
多次针对性编辑优于一次无重点的审阅
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

七步梳理框架

Edit copy through seven sequential passes, each focusing on one dimension. After each sweep, loop back to check previous sweeps aren't compromised.

按照七个连续环节编辑文案，每个环节聚焦一个维度。完成每个环节后，回溯检查之前的环节未受到影响。

Sweep 1: Clarity

环节1：清晰度

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:

Read through quickly, highlighting unclear parts
Don't correct yet—just note problem areas
After marking issues, recommend specific edits
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： 读者能否轻松理解你要表达的内容？

检查要点：

令人困惑的句子结构
指代模糊的代词
行话或内部用语
模糊表述
缺失的背景信息

常见清晰度杀手：

试图承载过多信息的句子
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
将核心观点隐藏在修饰性内容中

流程：

快速通读，标记不清晰的部分
先不修改，仅记录问题区域
标记完成后，提出具体的修改建议
验证修改是否保留了原文意图

本环节完成后： 确认“单一规则”（每个段落一个核心观点）和“用户导向规则”（文案面向读者）仍有效。

Sweep 2: Voice and Tone

环节2：语言风格与语调

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:

Read aloud to hear inconsistencies
Mark where tone shifts unexpectedly
Recommend edits that smooth transitions
Ensure personality remains throughout

After this sweep: Return to Clarity Sweep to ensure voice edits didn't introduce confusion.

聚焦点： 文案的语言风格是否一致？

检查要点：

正式与随意风格的切换
不一致的品牌个性
突兀的情绪变化
不符合品牌风格的用词

常见风格问题：

开头随意，后续变得生硬刻板
混合使用“我们”和“公司”的指代
无意的风格混搭（部分幽默、部分严肃）
随机出现的技术术语

流程：

大声朗读，发现不一致之处
标记语调意外变化的地方
提出平滑过渡的修改建议
确保品牌个性贯穿始终

本环节完成后： 回到清晰度环节，确认风格修改未引入新的困惑。

Sweep 3: So What

环节3：价值关联

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:

Read each claim and literally ask "so what?"
Highlight claims missing the answer
Add the benefit bridge or deeper meaning
Ensure benefits connect to real reader desires

After this sweep: Return to Voice and Tone, then Clarity.

聚焦点： 每一项表述是否能回答“这与我何干？”

检查要点：

只讲功能不讲价值
只提主张不讲影响
与读者生活无关的表述
缺失“这意味着……”的价值衔接

价值关联测试： 针对每一项表述，问自己“好吧，这又怎样？”如果文案没有用更深层的价值回答这个问题，就需要优化。

❌ “我们的平台采用AI驱动的分析功能” 这又怎样？ ✅ “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”

常见价值关联缺失问题：

仅罗列功能而不关联价值
听起来亮眼但无实际意义的主张
只讲技术能力不讲成果
与读者无关的公司成就

流程：

逐句阅读并提出“这又怎样？”的疑问
标记未给出答案的主张
添加价值衔接或深层含义
确保价值与读者真实需求相关

本环节完成后： 回到语言风格与语调环节，再回到清晰度环节。

Sweep 4: Prove It

环节4：证据支撑

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:

Identify every claim that needs proof
Check if proof exists nearby
Flag unsupported assertions
Recommend adding proof or softening claims

After this sweep: Return to So What, Voice and Tone, then Clarity.

聚焦点： 每一项主张是否有证据支持？

检查要点：

无依据的主张
缺失的社交证明
无支撑的断言
使用“最佳”“领先”等词汇却无证据

可参考的证据类型：

带姓名和具体细节的客户 testimonial
案例研究参考
统计数据
第三方验证
担保与风险逆转机制
客户logo
评分

常见证据缺失问题：

“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”（展示客户的原话）
无具体细节的成果主张

流程：

识别所有需要证据支持的主张
检查附近是否有相关证据
标记无支撑的断言
建议添加证据或弱化主张

本环节完成后： 回到价值关联、语言风格与语调，再回到清晰度环节。

Sweep 5: Specificity

环节5：具体性

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:

Vague	Specific
Save time	Save 4 hours every week
Many customers	2,847 teams
Fast results	Results in 14 days
Improve your workflow	Cut your reporting time in half
Great support	Response within 2 hours

Common specificity issues:

Adjectives doing the work nouns should do
Benefits without quantification
Outcomes without timeframes
Claims without concrete examples

Process:

Highlight vague words and phrases
Ask "Can this be more specific?"
Add numbers, timeframes, or examples
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？

检查要点：

模糊语言（“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

具体性优化示例：

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天内见效
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
无量化的价值表述
无时间范围的成果
无具体案例的主张

流程：

标记模糊的词汇和短语
思考“能否更具体？”
添加数字、时间范围或案例
删除无法具体化的内容（可能是冗余信息）

本环节完成后： 回到证据支撑、价值关联、语言风格与语调，再回到清晰度环节。

Sweep 6: Heightened Emotion

环节6：情感强化

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:

Read for emotional impact—does it move you?
Identify flat sections that should resonate
Add emotional texture while staying authentic
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？

检查要点：

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

可考虑的情感维度：

当前状态的痛苦
对替代方案的不满
错失恐惧（FOMO）
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：

阅读文案感受情感冲击力——它是否打动你？
识别本应引发共鸣却平淡的段落
在保持真实性的前提下添加情感细节
确保情感服务于信息传递（而非操纵）

本环节完成后： 回到具体性、证据支撑、价值关联、语言风格与语调，再回到清晰度环节。

Sweep 7: Zero Risk

环节7：零风险

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:

Focus on sections near CTAs
List every reason someone might hesitate
Check if the copy addresses each concern
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： 是否消除了所有行动障碍？

检查要点：

CTA附近的阻力
未解答的异议
缺失的信任信号
模糊的下一步动作
隐藏成本或意外情况

可参考的风险降低因素：

退款担保
免费试用
“无需信用卡”
“随时取消”
CTA附近的社交证明
清晰的后续预期
隐私保障

常见风险问题：

CTA要求读者做出承诺却未建立信任
提出异议但未解决
引发疑虑的小字条款
模糊的“联系我们”而非明确的下一步动作

流程：

聚焦CTA附近的段落
列出读者可能犹豫的所有原因
检查文案是否解决了每个顾虑
根据需要添加风险逆转机制或信任信号

本环节完成后： 最后一次回溯所有之前的环节：情感强化、具体性、证据支撑、价值关联、语言风格与语调、清晰度。

Expert Panel Scoring

专家小组评分

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.

完成七步梳理后，可使用此方法作为额外的质量把关。对于高优先级文案（着陆页、启动邮件、销售页），多角色专家审阅能发现单一视角遗漏的问题。

How It Works

操作方式

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

组建3-5个与文案类型相关的专家角色
每个角色在其专业领域为文案打分（1-10分）
收集具体批评意见 —— 不仅是分数，还要明确需要修改的内容
根据反馈修改 —— 优先解决得分最低的问题
修改后重新评分 —— 反复迭代直到所有角色评分达到7分以上，平均得分8分以上

Recommended Expert Panels

Scoring Rubric

评分标准

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

分数	含义
9-10	可直接发布。无实质性优化空间。
7-8	质量优秀。仅需微调。
5-6	可用但存在明显不足。需再次优化。
3-4	存在重大问题。需大幅修改。
1-2	根本性缺陷。需重新构思。

When to Use

使用场景

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

必须使用：启动文案、定价页、高流量着陆页
推荐使用：邮件序列、销售页、广告文案
可选使用：博客文章、社交内容、内部文档
无需使用：快速更新、 minor edits、低优先级内容

Quick-Pass Editing Checks

快速编辑检查

Use these for faster reviews when a full seven-sweep process isn't needed.

当无需完整七步流程时，可使用这些快速检查项进行审阅。

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:

Weak	Strong
Utilize	Use
Implement	Set up
Leverage	Use
Facilitate	Help
Innovative	New
Robust	Strong
Seamless	Smooth
Cutting-edge	New/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（弱化的强调词）
Just、actually、basically（冗余词）
In order to（替换为“to”）
That（通常不必要）
Things、stuff（模糊表述）

替换以下词汇：

弱表述	强表述
Utilize	Use
Implement	Set up
Leverage	Use
Facilitate	Help
Innovative	New
Robust	Strong
Seamless	Smooth
Cutting-edge	New/Modern

注意事项：

副词（通常不必要）
被动语态（转换为主动语态）
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)

每个句子一个核心观点
变换句子长度（长短句结合）
重要信息前置
每个句子最多3个连词
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

每个段落一个主题
短段落（网页内容2-4句）
有力的开头句
段落间逻辑流畅
留白提升易读性

Copy Editing Checklist

文案编辑检查表

Before You Start

开始前

Clarity (Sweep 1)

清晰度（环节1）

Every sentence is immediately understandable
No jargon without explanation
Pronouns have clear references
No sentences trying to do too much

每个句子都能立即理解
行话都有解释
代词指代清晰
没有承载过多信息的句子

Voice & Tone (Sweep 2)

语言风格与语调（环节2）

So What (Sweep 3)

价值关联（环节3）

Every feature connects to a benefit
Claims answer "why should I care?"
Benefits connect to real desires
No impressive-but-empty statements

每个功能都关联到价值
所有主张都回答了“这与我何干？”
价值与读者真实需求相关
无华而不实的表述

Prove It (Sweep 4)

证据支撑（环节4）

Claims are substantiated
Social proof is specific and attributed
Numbers and stats have sources
No unearned superlatives

所有主张都有依据
社交证明具体且有来源
数据和统计有出处
无无根据的最高级表述

Specificity (Sweep 5)

具体性（环节5）

Vague words replaced with concrete ones
Numbers and timeframes included
Generic statements made specific
Filler content removed

模糊词汇替换为具体表述
包含数字和时间范围
通用表述变得具体
冗余内容已删除

Heightened Emotion (Sweep 6)

情感强化（环节6）

Copy evokes feeling, not just information
Pain points feel real
Aspirations feel achievable
Emotion serves the message authentically

文案引发情感共鸣，而非仅传递信息
痛点真实可感
愿景触手可及
情感真实服务于信息传递

Zero Risk (Sweep 7)

零风险（环节7）

Objections addressed near CTA
Trust signals present
Next steps are crystal clear
Risk reversals stated (guarantee, trial, etc.)

CTA附近的异议已解决
存在信任信号
下一步动作清晰明确
已说明风险逆转机制（担保、试用等）

Final Checks

最终检查

Common Copy Problems & Fixes

常见文案问题及解决方法

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 解决方法： 在每个功能后添加“这意味着……”来衔接价值

Problem: Corporate Speak

问题：刻板官话

Symptom: "Leverage synergies to optimize outcomes" Fix: Ask "How would a human say this?" and use those words

症状： “Leverage synergies to optimize outcomes”（利用协同效应优化成果） 解决方法： 思考“普通人会怎么说？”并用日常语言表述

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 解决方法： 从读者的问题或期望成果切入

Problem: Buried CTA

问题：CTA隐藏

Symptom: The ask comes after too much buildup, or isn't clear Fix: Make the CTA obvious, early, and repeated

症状： 请求行动的内容过于滞后或不明确 解决方法： 让CTA清晰、提前出现并重复强调

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”却无证据 解决方法： 添加具体的客户 testimonial、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” 解决方法： 明确受众、方式和成效

Problem: Mixed Audiences

问题：受众混杂

Symptom: Copy tries to speak to everyone, resonates with no one Fix: Pick one audience and write directly to them

症状： 文案试图讨好所有人，却无人共鸣 解决方法： 选定一个目标受众并针对性撰写

Problem: Feature Overload

问题：功能过载

Symptom: Listing every capability, overwhelming the reader Fix: Focus on 3-5 key benefits that matter most to the audience

症状： 罗列所有功能，让读者不堪重负 解决方法： 聚焦对受众最重要的3-5个核心价值

Working with Copy Sweeps

协作式文案梳理

When editing collaboratively:

Run a sweep and present findings - Show what you found, why it's an issue
Recommend specific edits - Don't just identify problems; propose solutions
Request the updated copy - Let the author make final decisions
Verify previous sweeps - After each round of edits, re-check earlier sweeps
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.

进行协作编辑时：

完成一个环节并展示发现 - 说明发现的问题及原因
提出具体修改建议 - 不仅指出问题，还要给出解决方案
请求更新后的文案 - 让作者做出最终决策
验证之前的环节 - 每一轮修改后，重新检查早期环节
重复直到完善 - 持续迭代直到完整环节未发现新问题

这种迭代流程确保每一处修改不会产生新问题，同时尊重作者对文案的所有权。

References

参考资料

Plain English Alternatives: Replace complex words with simpler alternatives
Content Refresh: Full checklist, refresh vs. rewrite matrix, and cadence guide

Plain English Alternatives: 用简单词汇替代复杂词汇
Content Refresh: 完整检查表、更新vs重写矩阵及节奏指南

Content Refresh Editing

内容更新编辑

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

文案编辑不仅适用于新内容。现有页面会随时间老化——过时的数据、陈旧的案例、偏离的品牌风格。当流量下降、数据过时或产品发生变化时，可使用内容更新框架。

完整更新检查表、更新vs重写决策矩阵及节奏指南：请查看references/content-refresh.md

Task-Specific Questions

任务相关问题

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

这段文案的目标是什么？（认知、转化、留存）
读者应采取什么行动？
是否有特定顾虑或已知问题？
有哪些可用的证据/资料？
这是新文案还是现有内容的更新？

Related Skills

When to Use Each Skill

技能使用场景对比

Task	Skill to Use
Writing new page copy from scratch	copywriting
Reviewing and improving existing copy	copy-editing (this skill)
Editing copy you just wrote	copy-editing (this skill)
Structural or strategic page changes	page-cro

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）
编辑刚写完的文案	copy-editing（本技能）
页面结构或战略性调整	page-cro

copy-editing

Original

Translation

Copy Editing

文案编辑

Core Philosophy

核心理念

The Seven Sweeps Framework

七步梳理框架

Sweep 1: Clarity

环节1：清晰度

Sweep 2: Voice and Tone

环节2：语言风格与语调

Sweep 3: So What

环节3：价值关联

Sweep 4: Prove It

环节4：证据支撑

Sweep 5: Specificity

环节5：具体性

Sweep 6: Heightened Emotion

环节6：情感强化

Sweep 7: Zero Risk

环节7：零风险

Expert Panel Scoring

专家小组评分

How It Works

操作方式

Recommended Expert Panels

推荐专家小组

Scoring Rubric

评分标准

When to Use

使用场景

Quick-Pass Editing Checks

快速编辑检查

Word-Level Checks

词汇层面检查

Sentence-Level Checks

句子层面检查

Paragraph-Level Checks

段落层面检查

Copy Editing Checklist

文案编辑检查表

Before You Start

开始前

Clarity (Sweep 1)

清晰度（环节1）

Voice & Tone (Sweep 2)

语言风格与语调（环节2）

So What (Sweep 3)

价值关联（环节3）

Prove It (Sweep 4)

证据支撑（环节4）

Specificity (Sweep 5)

具体性（环节5）

Heightened Emotion (Sweep 6)

情感强化（环节6）

Zero Risk (Sweep 7)

零风险（环节7）

Final Checks

最终检查

Common Copy Problems & Fixes

常见文案问题及解决方法

Problem: Wall of Features

问题：功能堆砌

Problem: Corporate Speak

问题：刻板官话

Problem: Weak Opening

问题：开头平淡

Problem: Buried CTA

问题：CTA隐藏

Problem: No Proof

问题：无证据支撑

Problem: Generic Claims

问题：通用化主张

Problem: Mixed Audiences

问题：受众混杂

Problem: Feature Overload

问题：功能过载

Working with Copy Sweeps