Purpose
Score a piece of content against a brand's defined voice and positioning, flag every specific deviation with the exact offending line, and hand back ready-to-use rewrites — so content from freelancers, distributed teams, and agencies publishes on-brand without a manual line-by-line review.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Check whether a draft matches the brand voice or tone guidelines
- Review content from freelancers, agencies, or distributed writers before publishing
- Audit copy for off-brand language, tone drift, or positioning inconsistencies
- Get suggested rewrites to bring a piece back on-brand
- Score content against a brand style guide or voice charter
- Spot-check a batch of content for voice consistency across contributors
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Content to review: The full draft, copy, or content piece (any length or format)
- Voice guidelines: The brand's voice charter, tone rules, or style guide — however documented
- Voice adjectives: 3–5 words describing how the brand should sound (e.g., warm, confident, plainspoken)
- What to avoid: Words, phrases, tones, or clichés explicitly off-limits for the brand
- Positioning statement: The core value proposition or category claim the brand owns
- Content type: Where this will run — web, email, social, blog, product, ad
If a formal voice charter is missing, infer working voice principles from the voice adjectives and positioning, and state which principles were inferred.
Instructions
Step 1: Establish the Voice Baseline
Before reviewing, translate the guidelines into a scoring rubric across 6 voice dimensions:
- Tone — the emotional register (warm vs. authoritative vs. playful)
- Vocabulary — word choice, jargon level, brand-specific terms, banned words
- Sentence structure — rhythm, length, formality, use of fragments
- Point of view — first/second/third person, how the reader is addressed
- Positioning alignment — whether claims match the brand's owned position
- Personality markers — signature phrasings, humor, directness, or restraint the brand is known for
For each dimension, note in one line what "on-brand" looks like based on the inputs.
Step 2: Score the Content Across the 6 Dimensions
Rate each dimension 1–5 (5 = fully on-brand). For each score, give one sentence of evidence citing the content. Produce an overall voice consistency score as a percentage (average of the six, converted to a 0–100 scale).
Step 3: Flag Every Inconsistency
Walk the content top to bottom. For each deviation, log a flag with:
- The exact line or phrase (quoted verbatim)
- Dimension violated (which of the 6)
- Severity: High (contradicts positioning or breaks a hard rule) / Medium (noticeably off-tone) / Low (minor polish)
- Why it's off-brand in one sentence tied to the guidelines
Do not soften or skip flags to be polite — flag everything, then let severity communicate priority.
Step 4: Deliver Rewrites for High and Medium Flags
For every High and Medium flag, provide a rewritten version of that line or passage that resolves the issue while preserving the writer's intended meaning. Rewrites must be drop-in ready — no brackets, no placeholders. Keep Low flags as a quick-fix list without full rewrites.
Step 5: Positioning Gut-Check
Separately confirm the piece reinforces — and never undercuts — the brand's positioning statement. Flag any claim that dilutes, contradicts, or wanders from the owned category position, even if the tone reads fine.
Step 6: Summary Verdict
Give a clear publish decision: Ready as-is / Ready after listed fixes / Needs a rewrite pass. State the single most important change the writer should internalize for next time.
Output Format
- Structure: Voice baseline → dimension scorecard → flagged inconsistencies → rewrites → positioning check → verdict
- Length: 700–1,100 words (scales with content length)
- Format: Scorecard as a table; flags as structured bullets with quoted lines; rewrites shown as before/after
- Sections: Overall Score → 6-Dimension Scorecard → Flagged Inconsistencies → Suggested Rewrites → Positioning Check → Verdict
- Tone: Editorial director reviewing a contributor — direct, specific, evidence-led, never vague
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] All 6 voice dimensions are scored 1–5 with cited evidence for each
- [ ] An overall consistency percentage is calculated and shown
- [ ] Every flag quotes the exact offending line verbatim — no paraphrasing
- [ ] Each flag has a severity label (High/Medium/Low) and dimension tag
- [ ] Every High and Medium flag has a drop-in rewrite with no placeholders
- [ ] A clear publish verdict is stated (not hedged)
Notes
- The most common failure across distributed teams is tone drift, not banned words — writers stay technically compliant while losing the brand's feel; weight tone and personality markers accordingly
- When a voice charter is thin, the "words to avoid" list is often the highest-signal input — writers reveal the brand more clearly by what they'd never say
- Positioning contradictions are the most expensive errors and the least visible; a piece can score high on tone and still undercut the brand's core claim — always run the positioning gut-check independently of the tone score
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:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- 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