AC copywriting
When the user wants to write, rewrite, or improve marketing copy for any page — including homepage, landing pages, pricing pages, feature pages, about pages, or product pages. Also use when the user says "write copy for," "improve this copy," "rewrite this page," "marketing copy," "headline help," "CTA copy," "value proposition," "tagline," "subheadline," "hero section copy," "above the fold," "this copy is weak," "make this more compelling," or "help me describe my product." Use this whenever someone is working on website text that needs to persuade or convert. For email copy, see email-sequence. For popup copy, see popup-cro. For editing existing copy, see copy-editing.
The skill triggers on keywords like "write copy," "rewrite this," "make a headline" and routes to the right place. It covers landing pages, pricing pages, about sections, and CTAs — everything persuasive on a website. Tests show grade A, quality score 93, no critical errors. Files intact, references valid, no lint issues.
No sandbox run or model testing. That means the skill will fire at the right moment, but what it actually tells the model to do and what output you get — untested. Worth installing if you need a working router for copywriting tasks and don't mind verifying the result yourself.
When the user wants to write, rewrite, or improve marketing copy for any page — including homepage, landing pages, pricing pages, feature pages, about pages…
As a process C 63/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, running it twice
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 63/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 5 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 85Steps. 83 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1625 tokens
- low 27 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +4No input/output examples
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 14 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 680: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 32 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 83 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 2)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 93.