@stacksjs/defaults 0.75.108 → 0.75.110

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-copy-editing/PLAYBOOK.md

@@ -0,0 +1,485 @@
+> Adapted playbook. The [shared Stacks workflow](../stacks-marketing/WORKFLOW.md) governs implementation, current facts, and authorization.
+
+
+# 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:**
+Read the established product context described in [the shared workflow](../stacks-marketing/WORKFLOW.md) before asking questions.
+
+Good copy editing improves what's already there. 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:**
+
+| 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:**
+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
+
+| 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. |
+
+### 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:**
+
+| Weak | Strong |
+|------|--------|
+| Utilize | Use |
+| Implement | Set up |
+| Leverage | Use |
+| Facilitate | Help |
+
+**Replace with the fact** (a synonym swap just makes a new tell):
+
+| Vague | Write the fact instead |
+|-------|------------------------|
+| Innovative / cutting-edge | What it does that alternatives don't |
+| Robust | The uptime, scale, or failure case it handles |
+| Seamless | The real setup step count or time |
+
+**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
+
+### AI-Tell Check
+
+Run this on every edit, after the sweeps. A reader who spots an AI tell tends to doubt the claims around it. The shape of a sentence gives it away more than any word does.
+
+**Fix every instance of these:**
+
+| Pattern | Example | Fix |
+|---------|---------|-----|
+| Contrast reveal | "It's not X, it's Y." "Not because X. Because Y." | State Y directly, with the reason |
+| Negation list | "No setup call, no templates, no waiting on IT." | Say what does happen; keep one absence if it matters ("No card required") |
+| Trailing pile-on | "...the data you already have, no exports, no spreadsheets." / "..., ensuring nothing slips." | End the sentence at the claim; give the benefit its own sentence |
+| Self-answered question | "The result? 3x faster." | Delete the question, keep the answer |
+| Colon reveal | "The best part: it learns." | Write a normal sentence |
+| Stock phrases | "In today's fast-paced world," "Whether you're X or Y," "Here's the thing," "Say goodbye to," "X, reimagined," "Unlock the power of" | Cut, then open with the reader's problem or the fact |
+| Em dashes in short copy | Headlines, subheads, CTAs, ads, social posts, subject lines (1-2 per page max in long copy) | Period, comma, or colon |
+
+**Cap these:** one fragment and one list of three per section (a hero, a page section, or one short post). Treat seamless, robust, powerful, streamline, and empower as placeholders: replace them with the fact they stand for where you can, and if two show up in one paragraph, rewrite the paragraph.
+
+**How to fix:** go back to the facts (the mechanism, number, customer, or step) and rewrite from those. Swapping in synonyms creates new tells. If the fact isn't available, mark `[NEED: ...]` instead of inventing one. Keep the brand's register. A formal sentence that makes a specific claim is fine.
+
+**Leave these alone:** FAQ questions, a single "No card required" by the CTA, a list of three when there really are three features, and a clause after a comma that adds a new fact ("Imports run nightly, keeping your existing IDs").
+
+For the full blacklist with examples, use the **stacks-marketing-copywriting** skill's AI-tells reference.
+
+---
+
+## Copy Editing Checklist
+
+For a final QA pass before delivering edits, work through the full checklist in [references/checklist.md](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: Reads as AI-Written
+**Symptom:** "Not X. Y." reveals, "no X, no Y, no Z" lists, long sentences trailing extra clauses, stock openers
+**Fix:** Run the AI-Tell Check above and rewrite those sentences from the underlying facts
+
+### 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
+
+- [Plain English Alternatives](references/plain-english-alternatives.md): Replace complex words with simpler alternatives
+- [Content Refresh](references/content-refresh.md): SERP gap analysis, full checklist, refresh vs. rewrite matrix, and cadence guide
+- [Copy Editing Checklist](references/checklist.md): Full QA checklist across all seven sweeps plus the AI-tell check
+
+---
+
+## 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 SERP gap analysis, full refresh checklist, refresh vs. rewrite decision matrix, and cadence guide**: See [references/content-refresh.md](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
+
+- **stacks-marketing-copywriting**: For writing new copy from scratch (use this skill to edit after your first draft is complete)
+- **stacks-marketing-cro**: For broader page optimization beyond copy
+- **stacks-marketing-psychology**: For understanding why certain edits improve conversion
+- **stacks-marketing-ab-testing**: For testing copy variations
+
+---
+
+## When to Use Each Skill
+
+| 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 | cro |

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-copy-editing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+name: stacks-marketing-copy-editing
+description: Use when the user wants to edit, review, or improve existing marketing copy, or refresh outdated content. Covers marketing planning and its Stacks implementation.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Bun >= 1.3.0, TypeScript
+allowed-tools: Read Edit Write Bash Grep Glob
+---
+
+# Marketing Copy Editing
+
+Read [the shared Stacks workflow](../stacks-marketing/WORKFLOW.md), then
+[PLAYBOOK.md](PLAYBOOK.md) before doing this task. Load the supporting references
+only for the branch the playbook routes to.
+
+This ports `copy-editing` from
+[coreyhaines31/marketingskills](https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills/tree/1efedbc5148b54b2f0f6c6c9fe0be62e151c7fff/skills/copy-editing).
+[NOTICE.md](NOTICE.md) records the snapshot and [LICENSE](LICENSE) retains the
+upstream MIT notice.
+
+## Stacks integration
+
+Keep marketing recommendations distinct from application API facts. Use the
+framework skill for any model, action, route, stx page, campaign job, or payment
+change. Use the user's existing brief and authorization; a playbook example
+does not supply a product fact or authorize sending, spending, or publishing.
+
+Platform limits and benchmarks in the snapshot need current primary-source
+verification before use. Return the requested artifact with consequential
+assumptions and evidence, then verify any implementation through its real
+behavior. Use TypeScript and Bun for executable helpers.

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-copy-editing/evals/evals.json

@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+{
+  "skill_name": "stacks-marketing-copy-editing",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "Edit this homepage copy for us: 'Welcome to CloudSync! We are very excited to offer you an innovative, cutting-edge platform that seamlessly integrates with your existing tools. Our powerful solution helps businesses of all sizes optimize their workflows and drive meaningful results. Get started today and experience the difference!'",
+      "expected_output": "Should check for product-marketing.md first. Should apply the Seven Sweeps Framework systematically. Sweep 1 (Clarity): identify vague language ('optimize workflows,' 'drive meaningful results,' 'experience the difference'). Sweep 2 (Voice & Tone): flag 'Welcome to' as weak opening, 'we are very excited' as company-focused. Sweep 3 (So What): question what specific value is being offered. Sweep 4 (Prove It): note no proof points, stats, or evidence. Sweep 5 (Specificity): flag 'businesses of all sizes,' 'existing tools,' 'powerful solution' as generic. Sweep 6 (Heightened Emotion): assess emotional impact. Sweep 7 (Zero Risk): check for trust signals. Should provide a rewritten version addressing all issues.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Checks for product-marketing.md",
+        "Applies Seven Sweeps Framework",
+        "Identifies vague language (Clarity sweep)",
+        "Flags weak opening and company-focused language (Voice & Tone sweep)",
+        "Questions missing value proposition (So What sweep)",
+        "Notes missing proof points (Prove It sweep)",
+        "Flags generic terms (Specificity sweep)",
+        "Provides a rewritten version"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "prompt": "Quick edit on this CTA section: 'Ready to take your business to the next level? Our team of dedicated professionals is standing by to help you achieve your goals. Click here to learn more about how we can help you succeed.'",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the quick-pass editing checks. Should identify: 'take your business to the next level' (cliché), 'team of dedicated professionals' (filler), 'standing by' (passive), 'click here' (weak CTA), 'learn more' (vague action), 'help you succeed' (generic). Should apply word-level, sentence-level, and paragraph-level checks. Should rewrite with specific value prop, active voice, and strong action-oriented CTA. Should be concise since this was requested as a 'quick edit.'",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Identifies clichés and filler phrases",
+        "Flags 'click here' and 'learn more' as weak",
+        "Applies word-level and sentence-level checks",
+        "Rewrites with specific value and strong CTA",
+        "Uses active voice in rewrite",
+        "Keeps response concise for a quick edit"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "prompt": "edit this product description, it feels too long and wordy: 'Our comprehensive project management solution provides teams with a robust set of tools that enable them to efficiently plan, execute, and monitor their projects from start to finish. With our intuitive interface, powerful analytics dashboard, and seamless integration capabilities, you can ensure that every aspect of your project is managed with precision and care. Whether you're a small startup or a large enterprise, our platform scales to meet your unique needs and requirements, helping you deliver projects on time and within budget every single time.'",
+      "expected_output": "Should trigger on casual phrasing. Should apply the Clarity and Specificity sweeps primarily. Should identify: redundancy ('plan, execute, and monitor' overlaps with 'from start to finish'), filler words ('comprehensive,' 'robust,' 'efficiently,' 'seamless,' 'unique'), hedge phrases ('ensuring every aspect,' 'with precision and care'), and generic claims ('scales to meet your needs,' 'on time and within budget every single time'). Should cut the copy significantly (probably by 50%+). Should provide a tighter rewrite that says the same thing in fewer, more specific words.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Triggers on casual phrasing",
+        "Identifies redundancy in the copy",
+        "Identifies filler words and hedge phrases",
+        "Identifies generic claims",
+        "Cuts copy significantly (50%+ reduction)",
+        "Provides tighter rewrite with specific language"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "prompt": "Review this testimonial section and improve it: 'CloudSync is great! It really helped our company. The team was very responsive and the product works well. We would recommend it to anyone looking for a solution. - John S., CEO'",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the Prove It and Specificity sweeps. Should identify the testimonial as too vague to be persuasive ('great,' 'really helped,' 'works well,' 'anyone looking for a solution'). Should recommend replacing with specific results ('reduced project delivery time by 30%'), specific context ('team of 45 engineers'), and specific outcomes. Should suggest questions to ask the customer for a better testimonial. Should not fabricate specific numbers but should provide a template showing what a strong testimonial looks like.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Applies Prove It and Specificity sweeps",
+        "Identifies testimonial as too vague",
+        "Recommends specific results and context",
+        "Suggests questions to get better testimonial",
+        "Does not fabricate specific numbers",
+        "Provides template for strong testimonial"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "prompt": "I need you to apply the 'So What' and 'Zero Risk' sweeps to this pricing page copy: 'Our Pro plan includes unlimited projects, advanced reporting, priority support, and custom integrations. Starting at $99/month.'",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply specifically the So What and Zero Risk sweeps as requested. So What: for each feature, ask 'so what does this mean for the customer?' - unlimited projects (what does that enable?), advanced reporting (what decisions can they make?), priority support (what does that mean in practice? response time?), custom integrations (which ones? what workflow does it enable?). Zero Risk: identify missing trust signals - no guarantee, no trial mention, no social proof near pricing, no 'cancel anytime' assurance. Should provide rewritten copy addressing both sweeps.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Applies So What sweep to each feature",
+        "Translates features to customer benefits",
+        "Applies Zero Risk sweep",
+        "Identifies missing trust signals",
+        "Suggests guarantee, trial, or cancel-anytime language",
+        "Provides rewritten copy addressing both sweeps"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "prompt": "Write fresh homepage copy for our new product. We're launching a CRM for real estate agents.",
+      "expected_output": "Should recognize this is a copywriting-from-scratch task, not copy editing. Should defer to or cross-reference the copywriting skill, which handles writing new copy from scratch. Copy-editing is specifically for improving existing copy. Should make this distinction clear.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Recognizes this as writing new copy, not editing existing copy",
+        "References or defers to copywriting skill",
+        "Explains that copy-editing is for improving existing copy",
+        "Does not attempt to write full page copy from scratch"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "prompt": "My client says this copy reads like AI slop. Fix it:\n\n1. Most agencies have a folder of campaign ideas nobody will ever launch. Not because they're bad ideas. Because each one needs a developer.\n2. No onboarding call, no spreadsheet templates, no chasing approvals by email. No contract.\n3. Reports, alerts, and client dashboards all update straight from the ad accounts you already connected, no exports, no manual refresh, no second copy of the data to maintain.",
+      "expected_output": "Should identify the tell in each line: (1) a contrast reveal with fragment cadence, (2) a 'no X, no Y, no Z' negation list capped with a fragment, (3) a long sentence that trails a negation list after the main claim. Should rewrite each from the underlying facts: (1) a direct statement with the reason (each idea needs a developer), (2) what does happen instead, keeping at most one absence if it matters, (3) end the sentence at the claim and give the benefit its own short sentence. Rewrites must not introduce new tells (no em dashes, no self-answered questions, no new negation lists, no synonym swaps like 'effortless'). Should not invent numbers or proof.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Names the contrast-reveal pattern in line 1",
+        "Names the negation-list pattern in line 2",
+        "Names the trailing pile-on in line 3",
+        "Rewrites line 1 as a direct statement with the reason",
+        "Rewrites line 2 to say what happens, with at most one absence",
+        "Rewrites line 3 ending the sentence at the claim",
+        "Rewrites introduce no new AI tells and no invented facts"
+      ],
+      "files": [],
+      "id": 7
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "prompt": "Run your AI-slop check on this landing page section before it ships. Only change what actually needs changing.\n\nHeadline: Close the books in two days instead of ten.\nSubhead: Ledgerly matches bank transactions to invoices every night, keeping your existing account codes.\nCTA: Start a 14-day trial. No card required.\nFeatures: Bank matching, approval routing, and audit trails.\nFAQ: Does it work with NetSuite? Yes. It syncs both ways every hour.",
+      "expected_output": "Should recognize this copy as already specific and mostly free of AI tells, and leave it largely unchanged. Should not flag the FAQ question, the single 'No card required' next to the CTA, the factual three-feature list, or the comma clause that adds a fact ('keeping your existing account codes'). Should not rewrite for the sake of rewriting or introduce new tells. May suggest small optional improvements, clearly labeled as optional, with reasons.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Leaves the FAQ question in place",
+        "Keeps the single 'No card required' by the CTA",
+        "Does not flag the real three-feature list as a reflexive three",
+        "Does not flag the fact-adding comma clause as a pile-on",
+        "Makes no unnecessary rewrites and introduces no new tells"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    }
+  ]
+}