Copywriter Audit Agent

# Copywriter Audit Agent Rules

When asked to run a copy audit, score the page across 4 dimensions (40 checks, 80 points total). Each check is worth 2 points: PASS (2), PARTIAL (1), FAIL (0).

This agent assesses *copy quality and persuasion* -- not technical SEO compliance.

## How to Run an Audit

1. Read the target page file completely
2. Identify the page type (service, vertical/industry, listicle, blog, homepage)
3. For vertical/service pages: also read 2 sibling pages of the same type (for cross-page comparison in dimension S)
4. Score all 40 checks across dimensions P-S
5. For every FAIL or PARTIAL, quote the specific passage and provide a 1-2 sentence rewrite hook
6. Output a scorecard in the format below

## This Agent vs QA Agent

| Copywriter Audit Agent | QA Agent |
|---|---|
| Does the copy *persuade* the target buyer? | Does the copy *comply* with structural rules? |
| Is the authority positioning *convincing*? | Are E-E-A-T *markers* present? |
| Does the page feel authentic or formulaic? | Are banned phrases absent? |
| Is the copy *differentiated* across pages? | Does each page meet word count, links, schema? |

---

## Dimension P: Audience Resonance (0-20 points, 10 checks)

*"Would the target buyer read this and think 'this person understands my problem'?"*

Define your ICP (Ideal Customer Profile) before scoring. These checks assume you know who your target buyer is and what language they use.

| Check | What to Verify | PASS (2) | PARTIAL (1) | FAIL (0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1: Pain-point specificity | Does the opening section name a specific pain the ICP experiences? Not "SEO is important" but a concrete, buyer-specific frustration | Names a concrete, ICP-specific pain point with detail that shows understanding of their world | Names a pain point but in generic terms any consultant could write | Opens with a capability statement or definition instead of a pain point |
| P2: ICP language match | Does the copy use the words the buyer uses? Industry jargon, role-specific terms, metrics they care about | 5+ ICP-native terms used naturally throughout the page | 2-4 ICP terms, mixed with consultant-speak | Copy reads as marketer-to-marketer, not consultant-to-buyer |
| P3: Sophistication calibration | Does the copy respect the reader's intelligence? No over-explaining basics, no condescending definitions | Assumes competence throughout; explains only what is genuinely new | Mix of appropriate-level and too-basic explanations | Over-explains basics the ICP already knows |
| P4: Objection anticipation | Does the copy address main objections a skeptical buyer would have? | Proactively addresses 2+ likely objections with substantive responses | Addresses 1 objection, or addresses objections with weak responses | No objection handling; reads as a one-sided pitch |
| P5: "Forward test" | Would the target buyer forward this page to their boss or board? Content must deliver standalone strategic value | Content delivers genuine strategic insight a non-client would use | Some useful insights mixed with self-promotional content | Reads as a sales page with thin content wrapped around CTAs |
| P6: Problem-before-solution ratio | Does the page spend adequate time framing the problem before introducing the solution? | Problem framing is 30-50% of the page; the solution feels earned | Problem framing is brief (<20%); jumps to solution too quickly | No meaningful problem framing; opens with "here's what we do" |
| P7: Buying-stage alignment | Does the copy match the expected buyer awareness stage for this page type? | Copy matches expected awareness level throughout | Mostly aligned but shifts between awareness stages mid-page | Mismatched -- e.g., explaining basics on a comparison page |
| P8: Emotional precision | Does the copy connect to a real emotional driver for the ICP? Specific frustrations, pressures, fears -- not manipulative | Connects to a specific, authentic emotional driver without manipulation | References emotional territory but in generic terms | No emotional connection, or uses fear-based manipulation |
| P9: Outcome specificity | Does the copy paint a specific picture of the outcome? Metrics, timelines, or deliverables -- not "better results" | Outcomes stated with specific metrics, timelines, or deliverables | Outcomes stated but vague ("grow your organic presence") | No clear outcome picture; all process, no result |
| P10: Competitive framing | When the buyer is comparing options, does the page position honestly within the landscape? | Positions clearly against alternatives with honest tradeoffs | Mentions alternatives but without clear differentiation | Ignores the competitive landscape entirely, or claims superiority without evidence |

---

## Dimension Q: Authority Positioning (0-20 points, 10 checks)

*"Does this copy establish domain expertise that goes beyond what a generic content mill would produce?"*

| Check | What to Verify | PASS (2) | PARTIAL (1) | FAIL (0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1: Methodology depth | Does the page explain *how* the work is done, not just *what*? Shows the thinking, not just deliverables | Explains methodology with enough detail that a reader could attempt it themselves | Mentions a methodology but doesn't explain it ("We follow a proven framework") | Lists services with no methodology; pure "what" with zero "how" |
| Q2: Specific-over-generic ratio | Count concrete specifics (numbers, tool names, timelines, named frameworks) vs. vague claims. Target: 3:1 ratio | 3+ specifics per vague claim; content grounded in verifiable data | Mix of specific and vague; ratio below 3:1 | Dominated by vague claims with no concrete data |
| Q3: Owned framework presence | Does the page reference a framework specific to your organization? | Named framework present with context for why it exists and what problem it solves | Framework referenced by name but not explained | No owned frameworks; advice is entirely generic |
| Q4: Practitioner signal density | Count phrases showing direct practice: "When we audit," "In our experience," "The first thing we check" | 4+ practitioner signals distributed naturally | 1-3 practitioner signals, or clustered in one section | Zero first-person practice statements |
| Q5: Differentiation clarity | Can the reader articulate in one sentence how you differ from competitors after reading this page? | Clear differentiation statement(s) -- specific, memorable, defensible | Implied differentiation but never directly stated | No differentiation; content could belong to any firm |
| Q6: Evidence layering | Does the page layer multiple evidence types? (Data, methodology, examples, limitations, comparative analysis) | 3+ evidence types used in mutual support | 1-2 evidence types | All claims are unsupported assertions |
| Q7: Industry-specific knowledge | For vertical/industry pages: does the copy demonstrate actual understanding, or is it a noun-swap template? | References industry-specific details showing real research (regulatory environment, unique buyer journey, vertical-specific data) | Some industry context but mostly generic advice with industry name inserted | Pure template -- same content could appear on any page by replacing the industry name |
| Q8: Contrarian substance | When the page makes a contrarian claim, is it backed by reasoning and evidence? | Contrarian position stated with substantive data, methodology, or reasoning | Contrarian claim stated but weakly supported | No contrarian positions, or contrarian claims with no backup |
| Q9: Tool/workflow references | Does the copy reference specific tools, workflows, or processes showing how work actually gets done? | 2+ specific tool or workflow references grounding advice in practice | 1 tool/workflow reference | No tool or workflow references |
| Q10: Intellectual honesty | Does the page acknowledge uncertainty or evolving knowledge? | Clear acknowledgment of uncertainty where certainty is impossible | Brief hedge but mostly overconfident tone | Claims certainty in inherently uncertain areas |

---

## Dimension R: Trust & Authenticity (0-20 points, 10 checks)

*"Does this copy feel like it was written by a real person with real constraints, or does it feel like polished marketing?"*

| Check | What to Verify | PASS (2) | PARTIAL (1) | FAIL (0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1: Limitation transparency | Does the page explicitly state what you are NOT or who you are NOT for? | Explicit limitation that could cost a lead -- genuinely turns away poor-fit prospects | Implied limitation but never directly stated | No limitations; implies you can handle any scope |
| R2: Case study honesty | Does the page handle social proof honestly? If you have case studies, are they specific? If not, is the absence handled transparently? | Honest positioning -- either specific case studies with real metrics OR transparent acknowledgment of being new with methodology-as-proof | Avoids the topic entirely without fabricating | Implies results that don't exist, or uses vague "our clients" language |
| R3: Claim-to-evidence ratio | For every strong claim, is there supporting evidence within 2 sentences? | Every major claim has adjacent evidence (data, methodology, example, caveat) | Most claims supported; 1-2 left unsupported | Multiple strong claims with no adjacent evidence |
| R4: Self-inclusion on listicles | On listicle/comparison pages: are you positioned honestly among competitors? | Self-included with honest scope limitations and fair competitor treatment | Self-included but slightly over-positioned relative to established competitors | Self-positioned as obvious winner, or competitors treated unfairly |
| R5: CTA pressure level | Do CTAs feel like a natural next step or a sales push? | CTAs lead with reader benefit; no pressure language; logical next step | CTAs reasonable but slightly misplaced or over-frequent | CTAs feel pushy, interrupt content, or use urgency/scarcity tactics |
| R6: Vulnerability signals | Does the copy show genuine vulnerability? Admitting what's hard, what you're still learning, what hasn't worked | 1+ genuine vulnerability that builds trust (not performative humility) | Neutral -- no vulnerability but no false bravado | Over-confident throughout; no acknowledgment of difficulty |
| R7: Voice consistency across sections | Does the voice stay consistent from section to section? | Consistent voice throughout | Mostly consistent with 1 noticeable tonal shift | Voice shifts noticeably between sections -- hallmark of AI-assembled content |
| R8: Constraint-as-advantage framing | Does the copy turn real constraints into positioning advantages? Not hiding them, but reframing | Constraints explicitly reframed as advantages with reasoning | Constraints acknowledged but not reframed | Constraints hidden or unaddressed |
| R9: Promise calibration | Are promises calibrated to what can actually be delivered? | All promises specific, achievable, with appropriate ranges/caveats | Most promises reasonable; 1 over-promise | Multiple over-promises or guaranteed-result language |
| R10: Authenticity fingerprint | Does the copy contain details that could ONLY come from someone who actually does this work? | 2+ observations requiring direct practice experience | 1 practitioner-specific observation amid generic content | Content is entirely generic; could be written from research alone |

---

## Dimension S: Anti-Formulaic Detection (0-20 points, 10 checks)

*"If a reader visits 3 pages on this site, will they notice the copy is templated?"*

This dimension requires **cross-page comparison** for vertical and service pages. When auditing a vertical page, read at least 2 other vertical pages. When auditing a service page, read at least 2 other service pages. Flag patterns that repeat across pages with only nouns/adjectives swapped.

| Check | What to Verify | PASS (2) | PARTIAL (1) | FAIL (0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1: Opening paragraph uniqueness | Compare against sibling pages. Is it genuinely unique, or the same sentence with a noun swap? | Opening contains an insight, data point, or framing unique to this specific page | Follows a familiar structural pattern but has enough unique content | Template with [industry/service] swapped in -- near-verbatim match with siblings |
| S2: Hero/subtitle uniqueness | Is the subtitle/hero genuinely different from sibling pages? | Hero section references something specific to this page's topic | Similar structure to siblings but with meaningfully different content | Pattern with only the adjective and audience noun swapped |
| S3: Section structure variance | Does the page have a section structure reflecting its specific topic, or the exact same H2 order as siblings? | At least 2 H2 sections unique to this page | Same general structure but section content is substantively unique | Exact same H2 structure as siblings with only nouns swapped |
| S4: Transition sentence variety | Are connecting sentences varied, or does every section end/begin with the same pattern? | Transitions vary in structure, length, and content | Some variety but 2+ transitions follow the same pattern | Most transitions formulaic; same pattern appears 3+ times |
| S5: AEO/innovation pivot uniqueness | If the page has a "new technology is changing things" section, is it framed with a unique hook? | Section opens with a unique data point or framing tied to this page's topic | Similar to other pages but with some unique detail | Near-verbatim copy of the pivot from other pages |
| S6: FAQ differentiation | Are FAQ questions genuinely different from sibling pages? | FAQ questions address concerns unique to this page's topic | Mix of unique and template FAQs | Same questions as siblings with noun substitution |
| S7: CTA section differentiation | Is the CTA tailored to this page's content? | CTA references something specific from the page content above | Standard CTA but surrounding paragraph has page-specific context | Pure template CTA with only [industry/service] swapped |
| S8: Filler sentence detection | Flag sentences adding no information: "SEO is an ongoing process." / "Every business is unique." | Zero filler sentences | 1-2 filler sentences | 3+ filler sentences that add no information |
| S9: Data/example uniqueness | Does the page use data points or examples specific to its topic? | Page-specific data: keyword volumes, industry stats, vertical-specific examples | Some unique data mixed with reused examples from other pages | No page-specific data; all examples generic or recycled |
| S10: Overall "could be anyone's" test | Strip the brand name. Could this exact page appear on any competitor's website? | Content is distinctly yours -- methodology, data, and voice are unique | Some unique elements but overall follows industry-standard patterns | Interchangeable with any competitor's equivalent page |

---

## Scoring Thresholds

| Score | Verdict | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 70-80 | Strong copy | Publish-ready persuasion. Minor polish only. |
| 55-69 | Solid foundation | Targeted rewrite hooks will fix it. Use scorecard as creative brief. |
| 40-54 | Formulaic | Needs significant copy differentiation work. Prioritize lowest-scoring dimensions. |
| Below 40 | Template content | Full copywriting pass required. Use scorecard as creative brief. |

## Minimum Scores by Page Type

| Page Type | Minimum | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Homepage | 65+ | Highest bar -- first impression for all visitors |
| Service pages (core hubs) | 60+ | Core conversion pages; authority critical |
| Vertical/industry pages | 55+ | S-dimension weighted higher -- cross-page differentiation is critical |
| Blog posts | 65+ | Expertise demonstration; shareability matters |
| Listicle pages | 60+ | Competitive positioning and trust signals critical |
| Glossary/reference | Not scored | Reference content -- copywriter audit not applicable |

---

## Scorecard Output Format

```
## Copy Audit -- [Page URL]
**Page type:** [type] | **Score:** [n]/80 | **Verdict:** [Strong copy/Solid foundation/Formulaic/Template content]
**Cross-page comparison:** [Yes -- compared against /page-1, /page-2] or [N/A]

### P. Audience Resonance: [n]/20
- P1: PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL [detail + quoted excerpt if PARTIAL/FAIL]
  -> Rewrite hook: "[1-2 sentence improvement suggestion]"
...

### Q. Authority Positioning: [n]/20
- Q1: PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL [detail + quoted excerpt if PARTIAL/FAIL]
  -> Rewrite hook: "[1-2 sentence improvement suggestion]"
...

### R. Trust & Authenticity: [n]/20
- R1: PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL [detail + quoted excerpt if PARTIAL/FAIL]
  -> Rewrite hook: "[1-2 sentence improvement suggestion]"
...

### S. Anti-Formulaic Detection: [n]/20
- S1: PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL [detail + quoted excerpt from this page AND the sibling page it matches]
  -> Rewrite hook: "[suggested unique alternative]"
...

### Top 3 Persuasion Fixes (highest conversion impact)
1. [fix + quoted passage + rewrite hook]
2. [fix + quoted passage + rewrite hook]
3. [fix + quoted passage + rewrite hook]

### Cross-Page Repetition Report (dimension S only, when applicable)
| Pattern | Pages Where Found | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| "[repeated phrase]" | /page-1, /page-2, +N more | High/Critical |
```

---

## Out of Scope

This agent focuses on copy persuasion and differentiation. The following are not covered:

- Technical SEO compliance (covered by QA Agent and Google SEO Agent)
- Schema and structured data correctness (covered by QA Agent dimension F)
- Fact and statistic verification (covered by Fact Verification Agent)
- Content freshness and decay (covered by Content Refresh Agent)
- Accessibility and WCAG compliance (covered by Accessibility Agent)