brand-review

Brand Review

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

Lark-native execution (depth core: LARK-PATTERNS, LARK-RECIPES, LARK-FUSION).

• Pull the content + the guideline from Lark, don't ask for a paste. Brand style guide and the draft usually live in Wiki/Docs: lark_doc_search to find them, lark_doc_fetch with a jq projection (P3 — jq: ".data.content[:6000]", never the full 25k-token payload) to read.
• Keep the canonical brand guide in Wiki. If the team has no documented voice, offer to author one with lark_wiki_node_create (P8) so future reviews resolve it automatically.
• Return the review as an interactive card, not a wall of text (P4): lark_im_card_send with a colored header (red if any High/legal flags, else green), one item row per High-severity finding, and an actions footer ("Apply high-severity fixes" / "Revise full draft"). Validate with print_json: true, then dry_run: true, then send. Resolve the recipient/reviewer first via lark_contact_search (P1).
• For non-trivial doc reading/rewriting (DocxXML), delegate to the lark-doc skill; for card grammar, lark-im.

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 ~~knowledge base reference: a Lark Wiki page or Doc — find with lark_doc_search, read with lark_doc_fetch (project with jq, P3)
   • A file path or a URL to a published page
   • Multiple pieces for batch review

2. Brand guidelines source (determined automatically):

   • First try the org's documented voice in Lark: lark_doc_search(query="brand voice") / "style guide" → lark_doc_fetch (jq-projected). This is the preferred source over local settings.
   • If a brand style guide is configured in local settings, use it.
   • If neither exists, ask: "Do you have a brand style guide or voice guidelines I should review against? You can paste them, point me at a Lark Wiki/Doc, or describe your brand voice. Otherwise, I'll do a general review for clarity, consistency, and professionalism — and can save what we settle on to your Wiki for next time (lark_wiki_node_create)."

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

Brand Voice Reference

Use these frameworks to evaluate content against brand standards or to help the user document their brand voice.

Brand Voice Documentation Framework

A complete brand voice document should cover these areas:

1. Brand Personality — Define the brand as if it were a person. Example: "If our brand were a person, they would be a knowledgeable colleague who explains complex things simply, celebrates your wins genuinely, and never talks down to you."
2. Voice Attributes — 3-5 attributes that define how the brand communicates, each defined with what it means in practice, what it does NOT mean (to prevent misinterpretation), and an example.
3. Audience Awareness — Who the brand is speaking to (primary and secondary), what they care about, their level of expertise, and how they expect to be addressed.
4. Core Messaging Pillars — 3-5 key themes the brand consistently communicates, the hierarchy of these messages, and how each pillar connects to audience needs.
5. Tone Spectrum — How the voice adapts across contexts while remaining recognizably the same brand.
6. Style Rules — Specific grammar, formatting, and language rules.
7. Terminology — Preferred and avoided terms.

Voice Attribute Spectrums

When defining or evaluating brand voice, position attributes on a spectrum:

Spectrum	One End	Other End
Formality	Formal, institutional	Casual, conversational
Authority	Expert, authoritative	Peer-level, collaborative
Emotion	Warm, empathetic	Direct, matter-of-fact
Complexity	Technical, precise	Simple, accessible
Energy	Bold, energetic	Calm, measured
Humor	Playful, witty	Serious, earnest
Innovation	Cutting-edge, forward-looking	Established, proven

For each chosen attribute, document it in this format:

[Attribute name]

• We are: [what this means in practice]
• We are not: [common misinterpretation to avoid]
• This sounds like: [example sentence demonstrating the attribute]
• This does NOT sound like: [example sentence violating the attribute]

Example:

Approachable

• We are: friendly, clear, jargon-free, welcoming to beginners and experts alike
• We are not: dumbed-down, overly casual, or lacking substance
• This sounds like: "Here's how to get started — it takes about five minutes."
• This does NOT sound like: "Yo! This is super easy, even a noob can do it lol."

Tone Adaptation Across Channels and Contexts

The brand voice stays consistent, but tone adapts to context. Tone is the emotional inflection applied to the voice.

Tone by Channel

Channel	Tone Adaptation	Example
Blog	Informative, conversational, educational	"Let's walk through how this works and why it matters for your team."
Social media (LinkedIn)	Professional, thought-provoking, concise	"Three things we learned from running 50 campaigns this quarter."
Social media (Twitter/X)	Punchy, direct, sometimes witty	"Your landing page has 3 seconds. Make them count."
Email marketing	Personal, helpful, action-oriented	"We put together something we think you'll find useful."
Sales collateral	Confident, benefit-driven, specific	"Teams using our platform reduce reporting time by 40%."
Support/Help docs	Clear, patient, step-by-step	"If you see this error, here's how to fix it."
Press release	Formal, factual, newsworthy	"The company today announced the launch of..."
Error messages	Empathetic, helpful, blame-free	"Something went wrong on our end. We're looking into it."

Tone by Situation

Situation	Tone Adaptation
Product launch	Excited, confident, forward-looking
Incident or outage	Transparent, empathetic, accountable
Customer success story	Celebratory, specific, crediting the customer
Thought leadership	Authoritative, nuanced, evidence-based
Onboarding	Welcoming, encouraging, clear
Bad news (price increase, deprecation)	Honest, respectful, solution-oriented
Competitive comparison	Confident but fair, fact-based, not disparaging

Tone Adaptation Rule

The voice attributes remain fixed. Tone dials them up or down based on context. For example, if a brand is "bold and warm":

• In a product launch, dial up boldness
• In an incident response, dial up warmth
• Neither attribute disappears; the balance shifts

Style Guide Enforcement

Grammar and Mechanics

Document and enforce these choices consistently:

Rule	Options	Example
Oxford comma	Yes / No	"fast, reliable, and secure" vs. "fast, reliable and secure"
Sentence case vs. title case (headings)	Sentence / Title	"How to get started" vs. "How to Get Started"
Contractions	Use / Avoid	"we're" vs. "we are"
Em dash spacing	No spaces / Spaces	"this—and more" vs. "this — and more"
Numbers	Spell out 1-9, numerals 10+ / Always numerals	"five features" vs. "5 features"
Percent	% / percent	"50%" vs. "50 percent"
Date format	Month DD, YYYY / DD/MM/YYYY / etc.	"January 15, 2025"
Time format	12-hour / 24-hour	"3:00 PM" vs. "15:00"
Lists	Periods / No periods on fragments	"Set up your account." vs. "Set up your account"

Formatting Conventions

• Heading hierarchy (when to use H1, H2, H3)
• Bold and italic usage (bold for emphasis, italic for titles/terms)
• Link text (descriptive vs. "click here" — always descriptive)
• Image alt text requirements
• Code formatting (for technical brands)
• Callout or highlight box usage

Punctuation and Emphasis

• Exclamation mark policy (limited use, never more than one)
• Ellipsis usage (avoid in most professional contexts)
• ALL CAPS policy (avoid; use bold for emphasis instead)
• Emoji usage by channel (professional channels: minimal or none; social: where appropriate)

Terminology Management

Preferred Terms

Maintain a list of preferred terms and their incorrect alternatives:

Use This	Not This	Notes
sign up (verb)	signup (verb)	"signup" is the noun form
log in (verb)	login (verb)	"login" is the noun/adjective form
set up (verb)	setup (verb)	"setup" is the noun/adjective form
email	e-mail	No hyphen
website	web site	One word
data is (singular)	data are	Unless the publication requires plural

Product and Feature Names

• Official capitalization for product names
• When to use the full product name vs. shorthand
• Whether to use "the" before product names
• How to handle versioning in copy
• Trademark and registration symbols (when required and when to omit)

Inclusive Language

• Use gender-neutral language (they/them for unknown individuals)
• Avoid ableist language ("crazy", "blind spot", "lame")
• Use person-first language where appropriate
• Avoid culturally specific idioms that may not translate
• Use "simple" or "straightforward" instead of "easy" (what is easy varies by person)

Industry Jargon Management

• Define which technical terms the audience understands without explanation
• List jargon that should always be defined or replaced with plain language
• Specify which acronyms need to be spelled out on first use
• Audience-specific glossary for terms that mean different things to different readers

Competitor and Category Terms

• How to refer to your product category (use your preferred framing)
• How to refer to competitors (by name or generically)
• Terms competitors have coined that you should avoid (to prevent reinforcing their positioning)
• Your preferred differentiation language

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

Surface the result as an interactive card (P4) — lark_im_card_send, header red if any High/legal flags else green, an item row per High-severity finding, note footer with the counts — then ask:

"Would you like me to:

• Revise the full content with these suggestions applied? (I can write it back to the Doc via the lark-doc skill.)
• Focus on fixing just the high-severity issues?
• Review additional content against the same guidelines?
• Document your brand voice in Wiki (lark_wiki_node_create, P8) so future reviews resolve it automatically?"