Copy analysis

/copy-analysis — Audit the copy on any website

The audit counterpart to /copy-writing (which produces) and /copy-council (which critiques copy in chat). This skill points the same masters at a live URL — analyses every piece of copy on the page, names the frameworks in use, scores it /10 against established benchmarks, runs the Copy Council, and tells the user what to fix.

The point: surface what is actually working, what is leaking conversion, and what the masters would change — judged through the same named historical lens used in /copy-council, never as generic critique.

---

Step 1 — Get the URL

The URL is the only required input. If the user typed /copy-analysis https://… or pasted a URL in the same message, use it directly.

If the URL is missing or ambiguous, ask once:

"Paste the URL you want me to audit."

Do not proceed without a URL. Do not invent one. Do not guess at the page from a brand name alone.

---

Step 2 — Fetch + extract the copy

Use /defuddle to pull clean markdown from the URL. Defuddle strips nav, footers, cookie banners, and chrome — leaves the copy. If /defuddle is unavailable, fall back to WebFetch.

Never fabricate copy. Every quoted line in the audit must come from the actual page. If a section is empty or unreadable, say so — don't fill the gap with plausible-sounding fiction (per the never_fabricate_facts memory).

After fetching, infer the page type from the URL path and the copy itself:

Page type	Signals
Homepage	Root path, brand-level positioning, multiple product mentions
PDP (product detail page)	/products/, /shop/, single product focus, price + add-to-cart copy
Landing page / sales page	/lp/, /start/, single offer, long-form, one CTA repeated
About / brand story	/about/, founder narrative, no direct sell
Blog / editorial	/blog/, /journal/, long-form article
Pricing page	/pricing/, tiers, comparison table
Collection / category	/collections/, product grid, category-level copy

Page type drives which Honourables get called in Step 6 and which benchmarks weigh most in scoring.

---

Step 3 — Inventory the copy

Before judging anything, list every distinct piece of copy on the page. Quote each verbatim. This is the evidence base for the entire audit.

COPY INVENTORY
──────────────
H1 (hero headline):           "…"
H2 / sub-headline:            "…"
Body — section 1:             "…"
Body — section 2:             "…"
Primary CTA button:           "…"
Secondary CTA(s):             "…"
Social proof / testimonials:  "…"
Microcopy (forms, tooltips):  "…"
Footer / value props:         "…"

Skip rows that genuinely don't exist on the page — note them as — absent —. Absence of social proof on a high-trust page is itself a finding.

---

Step 4 — Detect frameworks in use

Name which copywriting framework(s) the page is built on. The page may use one cleanly, mix several, or use none coherently. Be specific — which lines of copy embody the framework.

Common frameworks to check for:

• AIDA — Attention, Interest, Desire, Action. Classic linear funnel.
• PAS — Problem, Agitate, Solve. Direct-response staple.
• 4Ps — Promise, Picture, Proof, Push.
• FAB — Features, Advantages, Benefits.
• PASTOR — Problem, Amplify, Story, Transform, Offer, Response.
• Schwartz's 5 levels of awareness — unaware / problem-aware / solution-aware / product-aware / most-aware. The headline must meet the prospect at their actual stage.
• Schwartz's 5 stages of market sophistication — stage 1 (first to market) through stage 5 (jaded). Determines how direct vs. indirect the claim must be.
• Hopkins' specificity / preemptive claim — saying the obvious true thing about the product before any competitor bothered to (Schlitz live-steam-bottle-washing archetype).
• Bernbach's truth-told-entertainingly — the unexpected angle, wit, self-deprecation as strength.
• Halbert's "starving crowd" — does the copy presume audience selection has already done the hard work?
• Sugarman's slippery slide — every line earning the next.
• Kennedy's message-to-market match — does this exact message match this exact market?

Format:

FRAMEWORKS IN USE
─────────────────
Primary: [framework name] — [1-sentence evidence quoting copy from the page]
Secondary: [framework name] — [evidence] (if applicable)
Awareness stage targeted: [Schwartz's 5-level scale]
Market sophistication level: [Schwartz's 5-stage scale]
Framework coherence: [tight / mixed / incoherent] — [one-sentence why]

If the page uses no recognisable framework and is just decorative brand copy, say so plainly. That is itself a strong finding.

---

Step 5 — Score /10 against established benchmarks

Score the page across seven benchmark dimensions. Each is 0–10. The composite is a weighted average — clarity and specificity weigh more than urgency for most page types.

#	Benchmark	What earns a 10	What scores ≤3
1	Clarity	A 12-year-old understands the offer in 5 seconds.	The reader has to re-read the H1 to figure out what is sold.
2	Specificity	Concrete numbers, named claims, dated proof. ("At 60 miles an hour…")	Vague verbs, hedged adjectives, "premium / curated / thoughtful".
3	Desire	The body invokes a vivid felt outcome before any feature.	Feature-first, spec-sheet voice, no felt benefit named.
4	Proof	Specific testimonials with names + context, demonstrations, third-party validation.	Generic 5-star ratings with no source, or no proof at all.
5	Urgency / next-step momentum	Clear single action, the page makes hesitation feel like a loss.	Multiple competing CTAs, vague "learn more", no momentum.
6	Voice	A distinct human voice — sounds like a brand, not a template.	Generic marketing voice, AI-slop cadence, "elevate / transform / experience".
7	CTA strength	One primary ask, button copy is verb-first and outcome-led.	"Submit", "Click here", or no clear CTA.

Weighting by page type:

Page type	Heaviest weights
PDP	Specificity, Proof, CTA strength
Landing / sales	Clarity, Desire, Urgency, CTA strength
Homepage	Clarity, Voice, Specificity
About / brand	Voice, Desire
Pricing	Clarity, CTA strength, Proof
Blog	Voice, Specificity

Format:

THE SCORECARD
─────────────
1. Clarity         [n]/10 — [one-line rationale]
2. Specificity     [n]/10 — [one-line rationale]
3. Desire          [n]/10 — [one-line rationale]
4. Proof           [n]/10 — [one-line rationale]
5. Urgency         [n]/10 — [one-line rationale]
6. Voice           [n]/10 — [one-line rationale]
7. CTA strength    [n]/10 — [one-line rationale]

Weighted composite: [X.X]/10 — [page type weights applied]

Do not soften scores. A 4 is a 4. The whole point of an audit is to be useful — not flattering.

---

Step 6 — Run the Copy Council

This is the heart of the audit. Same structure as /copy-council. Each member is named in full with lifespan and signature credential, speaks in their own voice, judges the specific page (quoting actual lines), ends with one concrete change and a binary-ish verdict.

Re-use the council exactly as defined in .claude/skills/copy-council/SKILL.md. Do not paraphrase or shorten the voices. The lens each member applies is unchanged. Voices and lenses are inherited verbatim from that skill.

The Inner Five (always speak)

• David Ogilvy (1911–1999) — Founder, Ogilvy & Mather. Lens: specificity, headline strength, respect for the reader.
• Eugene Schwartz (1927–1995) — Author of Breakthrough Advertising. Lens: awareness/sophistication match, whether the lead channels existing desire vs. tries to create it.
• Gary Halbert (1938–2007) — The Boron Letters. Lens: plainness, audience selection, A-pile/B-pile mailbox test.
• Claude C. Hopkins (1866–1932) — Scientific Advertising. Lens: reason-why, preemptive claims, demonstration vs. assertion.
• Bill Bernbach (1911–1982) — DDB co-founder. Lens: the unexpected angle, truth told entertainingly.

The Honourables (call 2–3 based on page type)

Page type	Honourables to call
PDP / e-commerce	Joe Sugarman, Dan Kennedy
Landing / sales page / VSL	Joe Sugarman, Dan Kennedy, Drayton Bird
Homepage / brand	Helen Lansdowne Resor (if emotional category), otherwise let Bernbach lead the brand side
About / brand story	Helen Lansdowne Resor, Bond Halbert (edit ruthlessly)
Pricing	Dan Kennedy, Drayton Bird
Blog / editorial	Bond Halbert, Joe Sugarman (slippery slide)
Female-coded emotional category (beauty, fashion, home, parenting, self-care)	Helen Lansdowne Resor + one other relevant

If genuinely no honourable adds signal, call zero. Inner Five plus a strong synthesis is enough.

Format per council entry

[Full Name] ([birth]–[death]) — [signature credential, one line]

[2–4 sentences in their voice, judging the page. Quote a specific line of 
copy from the page if it illustrates the point.]

What he'd change: [one concrete, actionable revision — specific to a 
headline, a claim, a CTA, the awareness stage, etc.]

Verdict: APPROVE / REVISE / KILL

---

Step 7 — The Synthesis

The synthesis turns five (or eight) named voices into one actionable signal. Format:

THE SYNTHESIS
─────────────

Strengths (what's actually working):
- [strength 1, tied to a specific line]
- [strength 2]
- [strength 3 — only if real]

Weaknesses (what's leaking conversion):
- [weakness 1, tied to a specific line + the master who flagged it]
- [weakness 2]
- [weakness 3]

Consensus: [1–2 sentences — where the council clearly agreed]

Conflict: [1–2 sentences — where they disagreed and why; name the tradeoff]

Top 3 changes (priority order):
1. [the single most important revision, tied to the dominant verdict]
2. [the second]
3. [the third]

Council ruling: SHIP / REVISE / RESTART

Ruling logic

• SHIP — at least 4 of the Inner Five issued APPROVE, no Honourable issued KILL, composite ≥ 8/10. Rare.
• REVISE — dominant verdict is REVISE, top-3 changes are finite and actionable, composite 5–7.9/10. Most common.
• RESTART — 2+ Inner Five issued KILL on the strategic frame (wrong awareness stage, wrong audience, wrong page type), or composite ≤ 4.9/10. Bones are wrong.

State the ruling in plain language with one sentence of justification. Do not soften it.

---

Step 8 — Save + deliver

Save the teardown to the vault. Path:

~/Obsidian/References/copy-teardowns/[domain-slug]-YYYY-MM-DD.md

Where [domain-slug] is the URL's host with dots replaced by hyphens, and the path slug appended if not the root (e.g. shopexamplebrand-com.md, shopexamplebrand-com-products-sku-1234.md). If the same URL is audited twice in one day, append -v2, -v3, etc. — never overwrite a prior audit.

Frontmatter for the saved file:

---
type: reference
status: active
created: YYYY-MM-DD
tags: [copy-teardown, copy-analysis, [domain-slug]]
url: [full URL]
page-type: [homepage | pdp | landing | about | pricing | blog | collection]
composite-score: [X.X]
ruling: [SHIP | REVISE | RESTART]
---

Then the full audit body below the frontmatter, in the section order: Page Identification → Copy Inventory → Frameworks → Scorecard → Council (Inner Five + Honourables) → Synthesis.

Print the audit inline in chat as well. Same content, no code-fence wrapping at the top level — the user may want to copy specific lines or council entries. End the inline output with a single line pointing to the saved file:

Saved: ~/Obsidian/References/copy-teardowns/[filename].md

---

Step 9 — Optional follow-up

If the ruling is REVISE, end with:

Want me to apply the top-3 changes and rewrite the affected sections? (/copy-writing will take it from here.)

If the ruling is RESTART, end with:

The strategic frame needs to change before we rewrite. Want to revisit the brief — audience, awareness stage, page goal?

If the ruling is SHIP, end with no follow-up. The audit stands.

---

Non-negotiables

• Never fabricate copy. Every quoted line must come from the actual page (per never_fabricate_facts memory). If a section is absent, mark it absent — don't invent.
• Never fabricate quotes attributed to a real person. Channel each master's voice and paraphrase their known principles, but do not invent a sentence and claim Ogilvy or Halbert said it.
• Each Inner Five member always speaks. Skipping one is not allowed.
• Honourables are called selectively (2–3 per page) based on the page-type table. Calling all five every time dilutes signal.
• Each member ends with one specific, actionable change tied to a real line of copy, and a binary-ish verdict (APPROVE / REVISE / KILL).
• Score honestly. A 4 is a 4. Soft scores defeat the audit's purpose.
• Ruling is plain. SHIP / REVISE / RESTART. No "well, it depends."
• Save + print. The vault file is the durable record. The inline output is the working surface. Both, every time.

---

Related

• .claude/skills/copy-council/SKILL.md — the council critique skill this audit inherits its voices and rules from
• .claude/skills/copy-writing/SKILL.md — the writing skill that handles the rewrite if the ruling is REVISE
• /defuddle — the fetch tool used in Step 2
• /llm-council — the AI-advisor council (different tool — not used here)
• Vault: ~/Obsidian/References/viral-teardowns/ — sibling folder for video teardowns (different format, same teardown spirit)
• Memory: never_fabricate_facts.md — applies to both quoted page copy and attributed master quotes
• Memory: feedback_software_ideation_directness.md — the audit exists to be direct; soft rulings defeat the purpose