Review Brand & Copy (internal)
SkillDev toolsInternal brand & copy review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Checks changed user-facing copy against the project's brand doc: voice, terminology, and honesty of claims — applies only to surfaces with user-facing text. Findings only; never edits code.
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.
Then ask your AI: use the Review Brand & Copy (internal) skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by gtrabanco/agentic-workflow in skills/review-brand/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any
agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits,
never refactors.
Scope
The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.
Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)
- ✓ Read the project's brand doc first (e.g.
docs/brand/BRAND.md) — cite the rule for every finding; n/a all items if the project has none and say so - ✓ Tone of changed copy matches the declared voice (cite the guideline violated)
- ✓ Product/domain terms used consistently with the declared glossary (same concept, same word, same capitalization)
- ✓ No forbidden/deprecated phrases from the brand doc
- ✓ Claims are honest: limits, restrictions, and reductions the code enforces are disclosed in the copy (an undisclosed limitation is a major finding — repo hard rule)
- ✓ Error/empty-state copy is actionable (says what happened and what to do), not blame-y
- ✓ Consistency across the changed surface and its siblings (same action labeled the same way everywhere)
- ✓ Placeholder/lorem text absent from the diff
Materiality bar
Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project
explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence.
Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference
with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios.
An empty table with Decision: PASS is the expected result for a well-formed
change — never pad the table.
Return exactly
REVIEW BRAND — scope: <scope>
| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what> | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |
Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Decision: PASS | FAIL
FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findings never block — they route to the caller's triage step.
Done when
- Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
- The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and no code was changed.
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 21
- Forks
- 3
- Last commit
- Sep 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Gateway key
review-brand- Source
- github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow