Skip to content This library is free, offered as dana. If it helps your work, donate here →
penguin tree ai
← back to libraryDonate here

This is one of 3,622 free prompts in the penguin tree ai library. Sign up once and the whole library opens, with new prompts by email.

open the library →

Brand consistency reviewer

Audits design asset descriptions and copy against a brand toolkit — checking voice, tone, visual identity, terminology, and messaging rules — and flags every inconsistency with a severity rating and a specific…

download .md

Purpose

Compare a piece of copy or a described design asset against a brand's documented toolkit rules and produce a structured inconsistency report — every off-brand element flagged, rated by severity, and paired with a precise correction. Solves the drift problem that happens when multiple contributors, freelancers, or agencies produce content faster than a brand team can hand-check each piece.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when the user asks to:

  • Check whether copy or an asset is on-brand before it ships
  • Review a batch of social captions, product descriptions, or ad copy for consistency
  • Audit an existing landing page, email, or campaign against brand guidelines
  • Vet content produced by a freelancer, agency, or new team member
  • Identify where a design asset breaks visual identity or voice rules
  • Get specific corrections — not just a pass/fail — for off-brand content

Inputs Required

Before starting, collect:

  • Brand toolkit / guidelines: The rules to check against — voice attributes, tone descriptors, approved/banned words, color and typography rules, logo usage, imagery style
  • Asset to review: The copy text, or a written description of the design asset (layout, colors, imagery, type, logo placement)
  • Asset type: Social post / email / product description / ad / landing page / packaging / other
  • Channel or placement: Where it will run (affects tone and format expectations)
  • Target audience: Who the asset is speaking to
  • Strictness level: Strict (flag every deviation) or Practical (flag meaningful deviations only)

If a formal toolkit isn't provided, ask for at least three brand voice adjectives and any non-negotiable terminology rules before proceeding. If strictness is unspecified, default to Practical.

Instructions

Step 1: Parse the Brand Toolkit Into Checkable Rules

Convert the provided guidelines into a rule set organized by dimension. For each rule, note whether it's a hard rule (violations are always flagged) or a soft rule (judgment-dependent):

  • Voice: Personality attributes (e.g., warm, confident, playful) and what they sound like in practice
  • Tone: How voice flexes by context — celebratory, reassuring, instructional
  • Terminology: Approved product names, capitalization conventions, banned words, preferred phrasings
  • Grammar & mechanics: Oxford comma, sentence case vs. title case, emoji policy, exclamation point limits, contractions
  • Visual identity (for described assets): Color palette, typography, logo clear-space and placement, imagery style, layout conventions

Restate the rule set briefly so the reviewer and buyer share the same baseline.

Step 2: Review the Asset Line by Line Against Each Dimension

Work through the asset systematically, checking against each rule dimension:

  • Voice check: Does the writing embody the stated personality attributes? Flag passages that read off-personality (e.g., stiff copy on a "playful" brand, or hype language on a "understated" brand).
  • Tone check: Is the tone appropriate for this channel and moment? Flag mismatches (e.g., overly casual tone in a customer-service apology).
  • Terminology check: Scan for banned words, incorrect product name formatting, inconsistent capitalization, and off-brand phrasings.
  • Mechanics check: Check punctuation, casing, emoji use, and contractions against the toolkit's rules.
  • Visual check (described assets): Compare stated colors, fonts, logo placement, and imagery style against visual identity rules. Flag any use of colors outside the palette, non-approved typefaces, or logo misuse.

Step 3: Rate Each Flag by Severity

Assign every flagged item one of three severity levels:

  • Critical: Breaks a hard rule or damages brand recognition — wrong logo usage, banned terminology, off-color palette, contradicts a core voice attribute. Must fix before publishing.
  • Moderate: Noticeable deviation that dilutes consistency — wrong capitalization on a product name, tone slightly off for the channel, inconsistent punctuation style. Should fix.
  • Minor: Small polish issue — a single stray emoji, marginally clunky phrasing, an optional-style preference. Nice to fix.

Step 4: Write a Specific Correction for Each Flag

For every flag, provide:

  1. The excerpt or element in question (quote the exact copy or name the exact design element)
  2. The rule it violates (name the specific toolkit rule)
  3. The corrected version (rewrite the copy or restate the design fix — don't just describe the problem)

Never flag something without offering the fix.

Step 5: Produce the Consistency Verdict

Give an overall verdict and a short rationale:

  • On-Brand (no Critical or Moderate flags)
  • On-Brand with Minor Fixes (only Minor flags)
  • Needs Revision (one or more Moderate flags)
  • Off-Brand — Do Not Publish (one or more Critical flags)

Close with the single highest-priority correction to make first.

Output Format

  • Structure: Rule-set recap → dimension-by-dimension findings → flag table → verdict
  • Length: 500–900 words depending on asset size and flag count
  • Format: Prose recap and verdict; flags presented in a table with columns for Excerpt/Element, Dimension, Severity, Rule Violated, Correction
  • Sections: Brand Rule Recap → Findings by Dimension → Flag Table → Overall Verdict → Top Priority Fix
  • Tone: Precise and constructive — a brand guardian who explains the "why," never scolds, and always hands back a usable fix

Quality Checklist

Before delivering output, verify:

  • [ ] Every flag names the specific toolkit rule it violates — not a vague "off-brand"
  • [ ] Every flag includes a concrete corrected version, not just a problem description
  • [ ] Each flag carries a severity rating (Critical / Moderate / Minor)
  • [ ] All five review dimensions were checked (voice, tone, terminology, mechanics, visual)
  • [ ] The overall verdict maps correctly to the severity of flags found
  • [ ] The top-priority fix is identified as the single first action

Notes

  • If the buyer supplies only copy (no design), skip the visual dimension and note that it was not applicable.
  • When the toolkit is silent on a specific question (e.g., no emoji policy stated), flag it as an open guideline gap rather than a violation — this helps brand managers tighten their toolkit over time.
  • Voice violations are the most common and most subjective; anchor every voice flag to a named brand attribute so the correction is defensible, not a matter of taste.
  • For batch reviews, run each asset through the full sequence and add a summary line noting which flags recur across assets — recurring flags usually signal a guidelines gap or a contributor who needs re-briefing.

How to use this skill

This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.

Installing in Claude Code:

  • ~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md — auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)
  • <your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md — auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)

Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.

Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:

  1. Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
  2. Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits

For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills