Publisher: Corey Haines · Editorial profile by AI Tools Ratings · Review method
What task is this skill designed for?
Remove unsupported promises and internal production notes from an existing product review while preserving useful limitations.
What input and output should you expect?
Input: The current draft, intended reader, approved source facts, brand voice and an explicit editing scope.
Output: A revised passage with a short change rationale and a list of claims that still need evidence; no invented testimonials or performance figures.
What does it need to run?
An Agent Skills client and the original text. The source refers to an editing checklist, plain-English examples and content-refresh guidance. Current external facts require fresh source checks.
The pinned publisher README declares support for Agent Skills clients including Claude Code, Codex and Cursor. Compatibility follows the publisher’s stated support.
How should you approach installation?
- Inspect the pinned SKILL.md, license and referenced files needed for your specific task before installation.
- Follow the publisher README for your actual Agent Skills client.
- Try the illustrative prompt with synthetic material in a separate workspace. Review the checklist and approve any publishing, account or external-message action separately.
Installation guide: discovery, dependencies and runtime checks
What files, accounts or data can it access?
Reads drafts that may contain confidential positioning. A connected writing workspace can change shared documents; start with a separate copy and compare the diff before replacing the original.
What does the skill cost?
MIT-licensed source. Agent subscriptions, model usage and optional research or analytics services have separate costs.
What are its limits and alternatives?
A persuasive rewrite can erase necessary qualifications. Simulated expert-panel scores are not actual expert reviews or user research. Keep factual uncertainty even when it makes the message less promotional.
Use Copywriting for a blank-page draft. Use Customer Research when the main problem is that the copy has no real audience evidence to express.
What could you ask in a small trial?
Try this with a small sample:
Edit only this synthetic opening paragraph. Remove the unverified market-leader claim and internal launch note, preserve the price qualification, and show the changed lines with a reason. Do not rewrite unrelated sections.
How would you verify the result?
- Confirm the requested scope was respected.
- Trace every retained factual claim to supplied evidence.
- Ensure limitations remain clear and no fictional proof was added.
Use a baseline and record acceptance evidence before treating a successful task as a reliable workflow.
Which source and license were checked?
Read the reviewed SKILL.md at its pinned commit · Complete reviewed folder
Repository and current publisher guidance
Checked:
MIT — identified in the repository LICENSE at the pinned commit. External services and dependencies have their own terms. License evidence
Version details and review scope
Source: coreyhaines31/marketingskills/skills/copy-editing
Reviewed commit: e85f3cbc2e4a79bf33b2a12e9bdd9087d414735b
SKILL.md SHA-256: 2a072606d9d5662509ea6ef62c65719487dcb68876acab9286bde4d1af5c030f
Source-document review. This profile covers the source workflow, stated dependencies and license evidence. See our editorial methodology for how we distinguish source reviews and hands-on evaluations.