kwp-marketing-brand-review-workflow

This is a workflow skill for the marketing category.

Sub-Skills

The following skills are available in this workflow:

• rebyteai/kwp-marketing-brand-voice
• rebyteai/kwp-marketing-campaign-planning
• rebyteai/kwp-marketing-competitive-analysis
• rebyteai/kwp-marketing-content-creation
• rebyteai/kwp-marketing-performance-analytics

Workflow Instructions

Brand Review

If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see 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

Output Format

Present the review as:

Summary

• Overall assessment: how well the content aligns with brand standards (or general quality)
• 1-2 sentence summary of the biggest strengths
• 1-2 sentence summary of the most important improvements

Detailed Findings

For each issue found, provide:

Issue	Location	Severity	Suggestion

Where severity is:

• High — contradicts brand voice, contains compliance risk, or significantly undermines messaging
• Medium — inconsistent with guidelines but not damaging
• Low — minor style or preference issue

Revised Sections

For the top 3-5 highest-severity issues, provide a before/after showing the original text and a suggested revision.

Legal/Compliance Flags

List any legal or compliance concerns separately with recommended actions.

After Review

Ask: "Would you like me to:

• Revise the full content with these suggestions applied?
• Focus on fixing just the high-severity issues?
• Review additional content against the same guidelines?
• Help you document your brand voice for future reviews?"