mcpField
R
review-brand

review-brand

github.com/gtrabancoMarketing & growth2285 installsUpdated today
Repository

About review-brand

review-brand is an inline brand and copy review skill for other workflows. It reports findings without editing content, checking changed copy against project guidance for voice, terminology, claims, and consistency.

Key features

  1. 01Read the project's brand guidelines
  2. 02Check voice and terminology consistency
  3. 03Flag forbidden or deprecated wording
  4. 04Verify claims disclose relevant limits
  5. 05Review error and placeholder copy

Use cases

  1. 01Review product copy in a change
  2. 02Check copy against brand guidance
  3. 03Inspect error and empty-state messages
  4. 04Find product limits missing from copy

MCP support

The input does not describe how this skill relates to MCP.

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-brand

After installing, type/review-brandin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

Review Brand & Copy (internal)

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.

Comments

Markdown supported