Review Brand & Copy (internal)

SkillDev tools

Internal 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.

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