# Brand review Human Guide

## What This Is For
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md . It gives the agent a clearer input/output frame for brand and messaging: what context to ask for, what decisions to make, and what usable artifact to return.

Use this as a human-readable version of the Brand review agent skill. It is meant for marketers, operators, founders, and other non-coders who want the workflow without reading agent-specific implementation instructions.

## When To Use This
- Use this when you need a repeatable process for brand review.
- Use this when the task needs judgment, examples, constraints, or a clear output format rather than a one-off prompt.
- Use this when you want to hand an AI assistant enough context to produce a usable marketing artifact.

## When Not To Use This
- Do not use this when you only need a quick factual answer.
- Do not use this when the work depends on private data you cannot share with the assistant.
- Do not use this as a replacement for legal, compliance, financial, or medical review.

## What You Need Before Starting
- The goal or business outcome you want.
- The audience, customer segment, or market context.
- Any source material the assistant should respect, such as notes, briefs, examples, URLs, or brand guidance.
- Constraints such as tone, length, channel, deadline, region, or approval requirements.
- A clear definition of what a good final answer should look like.

## Step-By-Step Workflow
1. State the job clearly: "Use the Brand review guide to help me with..."
2. Add context: audience, goal, offer, channel, source material, and constraints.
3. Ask the assistant to identify missing inputs before producing the final output.
4. Have the assistant follow the skill-specific guidance below.
5. Review the result against the final checklist and ask for revisions where needed.

## Skill-Specific Guidance
- **Content to review** — accept content in any of these forms:
- Pasted directly into the conversation
- A file path or ~~knowledge base reference (e.g. Notion page, shared doc)
- Multiple pieces for batch review
- **Brand guidelines source** (determined automatically):
- If a brand style guide is configured in local settings, use it automatically
- Does the content match the defined brand voice attributes?
- Is the tone appropriate for the content type and audience?
- Are there shifts in voice that feel inconsistent?
- Flag specific sentences or phrases that deviate with an explanation of why
- Are preferred brand terms used correctly?
- Are any "avoid" terms or phrases present?

## Decision Points And Nuance
The original skill emphasizes: Trigger, Inputs, Review Process, With Brand Guidelines Configured, Voice and Tone, Terminology and Language, Messaging Pillars, Style Guide Compliance, Without Brand Guidelines (Generic Review), Clarity.

Use these questions to steer the work:
- What is the intended audience or buyer?
- What source material must be preserved?
- What should the assistant optimize for: clarity, persuasion, accuracy, speed, creativity, or conversion?
- What examples represent the desired quality bar?
- What should the assistant avoid?

## Common Mistakes
- Are any "avoid" terms or phrases present?
- **Terminology** — Preferred and avoided terms.
- **We are not**: [common misinterpretation to avoid]
- | Contractions | Use / Avoid | "we're" vs. "we are" |
- Exclamation mark policy (limited use, never more than one)
- Ellipsis usage (avoid in most professional contexts)
- ALL CAPS policy (avoid; use bold for emphasis instead)
- Trademark and registration symbols (when required and when to omit)

## Copy-And-Paste Prompt
```text
Use the Brand review human guide.

My goal:
[Describe the business outcome]

Audience:
[Describe who this is for]

Context and source material:
[Paste notes, examples, links, or existing copy]

Constraints:
[Tone, length, channel, timeline, must-include items, must-avoid items]

Before producing the final output, ask me for any missing information that would materially improve the result.
```

## Final Checklist
- [ ] The output matches the original goal.
- [ ] The audience and context are reflected in the answer.
- [ ] Important constraints and source material were preserved.
- [ ] The assistant made the relevant decisions explicit.
- [ ] The final artifact is ready to use, review, or hand to the next person.

## Source
This guide was generated from the anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins skill entry for `brand-review`.

## Source Skill Notes
These notes preserve the nuance from the original skill. Use them as supporting reference when the workflow above feels too generic.

# Brand Review

> If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md).

Review marketing content against brand voice, style guidelines, and messaging standards. Flag deviations and provide specific improvement suggestions.

## Trigger

User runs `/brand-review` or asks to review, check, or audit content against brand guidelines.

## Inputs

1. **Content to review** — accept content in any of these forms:
   - Pasted directly into the conversation
   - A file path or ~~knowledge base reference (e.g. Notion page, shared doc)
   - A URL to a published page
   - Multiple pieces for batch review

2. **Brand guidelines source** (determined automatically):
   - If a brand style guide is configured in local settings, use it automatically
   - If not configured, ask: "Do you have a brand style guide or voice guidelines I should review against? You can paste them, share a file, or describe your brand voice. Otherwise, I'll do a general review for clarity, consistency, and professionalism."

## Review Process

### With Brand Guidelines Configured

Evaluate the content against each of these dimensions:

#### Voice and Tone
- Does the content match the defined brand voice attributes?
- Is the tone appropriate for the content type and audience?
- Are there shifts in voice that feel inconsistent?
- Flag specific sentences or phrases that deviate with an explanation of why

#### Terminology and Language
- Are preferred brand terms used correctly?
- Are any "avoid" terms or phrases present?
- Is jargon level appropriate for the target audience?
- Are product names, feature names, and branded terms used correctly (capitalization, formatting)?

#### Messaging Pillars
- Does the content align with defined messaging pillars or value propositions?
- Are claims consistent with approved messaging?
- Is the content reinforcing or contradicting brand positioning?

#### Style Guide Compliance
- Grammar and punctuation per style guide (e.g., Oxford comma, title case vs. sentence case)
- Formatting conventions (headers, lists, emphasis)
- Number formatting, date formatting
- Acronym usage (defined on first use?)

### Without Brand Guidelines (Generic Review)

Evaluate the content for:

#### Clarity
- Is the main message clear within the first paragraph?
- Are sentences concise and easy to understand?
- Is the structure logical and easy to follow?
- Are there ambiguous statements or unclear references?

#### Consistency
- Is the tone consistent throughout?
- Are terms used consistently (no switching between synonyms for the same concept)?
- Is formatting consistent (headers, lists, capitalization)?

#### Professionalism
- Is the content free of typos, grammatical errors, and awkward phrasing?
- Is the tone appropriate for the intended audience?
- Are claims supported or substantiated?

### Legal and Compliance Flags (Always Checked)

Regardless of whether brand guidelines are configured, flag:
- **Unsubstantiated claims** — superlatives ("best", "fastest", "only") without evidence or qualification
- **Missing disclaimers** — financial claims, health claims, or guarantees that may need legal disclaimers
- **Comparative claims** — comparisons to competitors that could be challenged
- **Regulatory language** — content that may need compliance review (financial services, healthcare, etc.)
- **Testimonial issues** — quotes or endorsements without attribution or disclosure
- **Copyright concerns** — content that appears to be closely paraphrased from other sources