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 →

On-brand creative reviewer

Evaluates any piece of creative work — ads, emails, social posts, packaging copy, landing pages, video scripts — against brand standards across four dimensions: voice consistency, visual/verbal identity adherence…

download .md

Purpose

Evaluate a single piece of creative against brand standards and return a scored, dimension-by-dimension review with concrete line-level fixes — so the piece ships on-brand instead of merely competent. Solves the problem of subjective "this doesn't feel right" feedback by making brand compliance measurable and correctable.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when the user asks to:

  • Review a creative asset (ad, email, post, script, packaging, landing page) for brand fit before it ships
  • Check whether a draft "feels on-brand" or "sounds like us"
  • QA agency, freelancer, or junior team deliverables against brand guidelines
  • Diagnose why a piece feels off despite being well-executed
  • Compare a creative concept against the brand's voice, tone, and distinctiveness standards
  • Get specific, actionable revisions rather than vague creative notes

Inputs Required

Before starting, collect:

  • The creative asset: The full copy and/or a description of the visual — paste text, describe imagery, or both
  • Asset type: Ad / email / social post / landing page / packaging / video script / other
  • Brand guidelines: Voice attributes, tone rules, tagline, values, do's and don'ts — or a link/summary of the brand book
  • Voice attributes: 3–5 adjectives describing how the brand should sound (e.g., warm, irreverent, precise)
  • Audience: Who this piece is speaking to
  • Category competitors: 2–3 brands this creative must feel distinct from
  • Intended emotion: What the audience should feel after encountering this piece

If brand guidelines are thin, extract implied standards from 2–3 examples of past on-brand work and note the inference.

Instructions

Step 1: Establish the Brand Baseline

Before scoring, restate the standard the piece will be measured against in 3–4 lines:

  • The voice attributes in operational terms (what "warm" actually means in word choice, sentence length, punctuation)
  • The one emotion this piece is meant to produce
  • The single trait that makes this brand recognizable vs. its competitors (its distinctiveness anchor)

This baseline is the ruler. Every score references it.

Step 2: Score Across Four Dimensions

Rate each dimension 1–10 with a one-sentence justification tied to specific evidence in the asset — never a bare number.

Dimension 1 — Voice Consistency (weight: 30%) Does the language match the brand's defined voice attributes?

  • Check word choice, sentence rhythm, formality level, and punctuation personality against the attributes
  • Flag any line that would sound equally at home in a generic competitor's copy
  • Score 8+ only if a reader could identify the brand from the words alone

Dimension 2 — Identity Adherence (weight: 25%) Does the piece follow the brand's concrete rules?

  • Verbal: tagline usage, banned words, capitalization conventions, terminology (e.g., "members" not "customers")
  • Visual (if applicable): color logic, typography hierarchy, image style, logo treatment as described
  • This is the compliance dimension — deviations here are objective, not subjective

Dimension 3 — Emotional Resonance (weight: 25%) Does the piece produce the intended emotion, and does it land in the first 3 seconds of contact?

  • Identify the emotional hook (opening line, hero image, first frame)
  • Assess whether the emotion is earned through specificity or asserted through adjectives
  • Score down "tells" (words claiming an emotion) vs. "shows" (details that create it)

Dimension 4 — Competitive Distinctiveness (weight: 20%) Could a named competitor have published this piece unchanged?

  • Run the swap test: replace the logo with a competitor's — does it still work? If yes, distinctiveness is low
  • Identify what, if anything, only this brand could have said
  • Score 8+ only if the piece carries an unmistakable brand fingerprint

Step 3: Calculate the Weighted On-Brand Score

Compute a single 0–100 score using the dimension weights. Attach a verdict band:

  • 90–100 — Ship it: On-brand and distinctive; minor polish optional
  • 75–89 — Ship with fixes: Fundamentally on-brand; specific revisions listed will elevate it
  • 60–74 — Revise before shipping: Competent but generic or inconsistent; needs targeted rework
  • Below 60 — Send back: Off-brand or interchangeable with competitors; rebuild against the baseline

Step 4: Deliver Line-Level Fixes

For every dimension scoring below 8, provide specific corrections — not directives.

  • Quote the exact problem line or element from the asset
  • State why it misses the brand standard (reference the baseline)
  • Provide a rewritten version or a concrete alternative
  • Aim for 4–8 total fixes, ordered by impact on the score

Step 5: Name the One Highest-Leverage Change

Close with a single sentence: the one change that most improves the on-brand score. Be decisive.

Output Format

  • Structure: Brand baseline → four scored dimensions → weighted score with verdict band → line-level fixes → highest-leverage change
  • Length: 600–900 words
  • Format: Structured document — dimension scores as labeled blocks; fixes as quoted problem → reason → rewrite triads
  • Sections: Brand Baseline / Dimension Scores (4) / Weighted On-Brand Score & Verdict / Line-Level Fixes / Highest-Leverage Change
  • Tone: Creative director giving a review — direct, specific, respectful of the work but unsentimental about brand standards

Quality Checklist

Before delivering output, verify:

  • [ ] All four dimensions are scored 1–10 with evidence-based justifications — no bare numbers
  • [ ] The weighted score is calculated using the stated weights (30/25/25/20) and maps to a verdict band
  • [ ] Every fix quotes the actual problem line or element from the asset — not paraphrased
  • [ ] Each fix includes a concrete rewrite or alternative, not just "make this more on-brand"
  • [ ] The competitive distinctiveness dimension applies the swap test explicitly
  • [ ] The review names exactly one highest-leverage change and does not hedge

Notes

  • The most common failure mode is a piece that scores high on identity adherence but low on distinctiveness — technically compliant, creatively interchangeable. Weight your attention there.
  • Emotional resonance is where good copy separates from on-brand copy: assert less, show more.
  • When guidelines conflict with what the audience needs to feel, flag the tension rather than silently resolving it — that's a brand decision above the creative's pay grade.
  • For video or multi-frame assets, evaluate the first 3 seconds separately; that's where emotional resonance is won or lost.

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