Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to powroom/flins. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/powroom/flins/main/.agents/skills/copy-editing/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/powroom/flinsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/powroom/flins/copy-editing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/powroom/flins/copy-editing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/powroom/flins/copy-editing/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/powroom/flins/copy-editing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/powroom/flins/copy-editing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00073 | $0.02976 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.01190 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00595 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00298 |
Grade A, and why
copy-editing scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
83% identical to copy-editing — 178 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 440 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
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
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
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:
- 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.
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
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 440 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A f0bf068d14ed
copy-editing is a skill published in the GitHub repository powroom/flins (39 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 2,976 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to copy-editing, differing in 178 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
importing-a-codebase
Use when asked to create the initial spec graph for an existing codebase that has source code but no specs. Normally reached via setting-up-a-project.
starting-a-new-project
Use when the workspace is empty, has no code, and the user brings a raw project idea. Normally reached via setting-up-a-project; not for an existing project.
managing-mcp-servers
Use when the user asks to add, change, remove, enable or disable an MCP server, or when an MCP tool is missing, needs sign-in, fails, or was blocked. ThinkRail runs pi in-process, so there is no pi command to call.
todos
Use when the user asks for a shared plan, a task needs at least three substantive execution steps, or a loose TODO is pending. Without an explicit plan request, not for one-shot answers or checks, or one- to two-step work that is not already in the list.
asking-user-questions
Use when composing an askuserquestion round inside a workflow, or when a workflow skill names it at a question step. Shared norms for the tool — not a workflow, nothing to execute.
writing-workflow-skills
Use when adding a new workflow skill to pi-thinkrail-workflow, changing an existing workflow skill's role, trigger, handoff, or structure, or checking a workflow skill against the workflow system's rules. Not for authoring general-purpose skills outside this package.