brand-voice-evaluation

name	brand-voice-evaluation
description	Evaluates documentation against the team's brand guidelines. Use when reviewing docs for tone, terminology, sentence structure, and phrasing consistency.

Brand Voice Evaluation

Hard technique for evaluating documentation against a team's brand voice guidelines.

The style guide

dockit ships with a built-in style guide at @.opencode/dockit/references/style-guide.md. This is the source of truth for all voice evaluation — always read it before evaluating any content.

Read the entire style guide before evaluating any content. Build a mental checklist from it.

What to check

Tone alignment

• Does the document's tone match the descriptors in the style guide?
• Is the tone consistent throughout, or does it shift between sections?
• Are there sections that feel noticeably different from the rest?

Consistent terminology

• Does the document use the preferred terms listed in the style guide?
• Does the document use any forbidden words or phrases?
• Does the document use any of the words and phrases to avoid?
• Pattern: if the style guide says "use X not Y", search the entire document for every instance of Y

Sentence structure

• Flag passive voice sentence constructions
• Flag violations of the target sentence length
• Suggest changes for sentences that violate the maximum sentence length
• Check for consistency in how instructions are phrased (for example, imperative versus declarative)

Phrasing conventions

• Flag forbidden usage of UI action verbs
• Check technical language level
• Check formality markers

Internal consistency

Even without a style guide, the document should be internally consistent:

• If "dropdown" is used in one place, do not use "drop-down" elsewhere
• If imperative mood is used in one section ("Add the prop"), use it in all similar sections

Scoring rubric

Violation

• Directly contradicts a rule in the style guide
• Uses a term the style guide explicitly forbids
• Example: Style guide says "never use 'simply'" and the doc contains "simply add the prop"

Deviation

• Does not match the style guide's pattern but does not explicitly break a rule
• Inconsistent with the majority of the document
• Example: One section uses passive voice when the rest uses active

Suggestion

• Could better match the style guide's intent
• An improvement opportunity, not a rule breach
• Example: "The component is used for navigation" could be more active: "Use this component for navigation"

Output format

<output_format>

Each finding should include:

[severity] Section: {section name} (line ~{number})
  Issue: {description of the voice issue}
  Current: "{the current text}"
  Suggested: "{the suggested alternative}"
  Rule: "{the style guide rule this relates to, if applicable}"

Group findings by severity: violations first, then deviations, then suggestions.

End with a summary:

Voice Review Summary:
  Violations: {count}
  Deviations: {count}
  Suggestions: {count}

  Overall: {brief assessment — e.g., "Strong voice alignment with a few terminology inconsistencies"}

</output_format>