Brand Voice Validate

Brand Voice Validation

Grade content against the brand's voice guideline: what matched, what crossed a boundary, what terminology slipped — with a number and actionable fixes, not a vibe.

When to use

Any time content needs a brand check before it goes out: a drafted post, an email, a proposal paragraph, ad copy, a caption — or to spot-check content an agent produced.

Tools this skill uses

Scoring is done inline using the grading behavior in Step 2.

Prerequisites

• The content to score (pasted or referenced).
• workspace_id — resolve once via list-workspaces and reuse it. Auth is automatic via the Bolta connector's OAuth grant — never ask for an API key. Default new content to Draft; confirm before publish/delete.
• A voice source, in this order (stop at first hit):
  1. A guideline produced this session by brand-voice-generate.
  2. get-voice-context for the workspace (use list-voice-profiles to pick the right profile).
  3. If neither exists → stop, explain, and offer to run brand-voice-discover → brand-voice-generate first. Do not score against an invented voice.

Workflow

1. Load the standard

Prefer the session guideline (freshest). Otherwise get-voice-context; if multiple profiles exist, list-voice-profiles and confirm which one governs this content.

2. Score against each dimension

Score only dimensions the loaded voice source actually carries — never grade against a dimension the standard doesn't define.

Always available (both sources):

• Dos — is each do honored? (matched / partial / missing)
• Don'ts — any violated? (each violation is a hard deduction)
• Tone — does the register match the stated tone (tone dials + tone_of_voice descriptors), pacing, and content size?
• Audience & persona — does it speak to the stated target_audience in the stated persona / speaker mode, and honor any custom_rules?

Session-guideline only (skip when grading from get-voice-context alone — the compiled context does not carry these):

• We Are / We Are Not attributes — each active attribute present? any boundary crossed?
• Terminology — must-use present, avoid/never words absent.
• Tone-by-context matrix — register matches the matrix row for this content type. On the get-voice-context path, use the platforms adaptations block (if present for this platform) as the context check instead.

Grade against the brand's OWN standard, not generic "good writing" — a blunt, no-emoji brand should score high for being blunt and emoji-free. Quote the line for every violation. Then compose the 0-100 score from the dimensions actually evaluated (weight don't-violations and boundary crossings heaviest), and say which dimensions were skipped and why.

3. Build the deviation report

List, specifically (covering only the dimensions scored in Step 2):

• Dos/attributes matched (with the phrase that earned it).
• Dos/attributes missing or weak.
• Don'ts or boundaries crossed (quote the offending text).
• Terminology issues (found → should be) — session guideline only.
• Tone mismatch (observed register vs. the expected tone or matrix row).

4. Return score + fixes

Give the score, a one-line verdict (on-brand / needs work / off-brand), and a numbered list of concrete edits that would raise the score — quote the exact text to change and the replacement. Offer to apply the fixes via brand-voice-enforce.

Failure handling

• No voice source → stop, explain, route to discover/generate. Never score against nothing.
• Guideline has open questions touching this content → score against the recommended default and note the assumption.
• Permission error on get-voice-context → report the missing scope; if a session guideline exists, use it instead.

Example

User: "Score this against our voice: 'We're thrilled to announce our game-changing new tool!'"

1. Load session guideline → We Are: Direct, Proof-driven; We Are Not: Hype-driven; niche uses "platform" not "tool".
2. Score: crosses "not Hype-driven" ("thrilled", "game-changing"); terminology miss ("tool").
3. Deviation report: 0 We-Are matched, 1 boundary crossed, 1 never-word, 1 terminology miss.
4. Score 34/100 — off-brand. Fixes: drop "thrilled to announce" → lead with the metric; "game-changing" → cut; "tool" → "platform". Offer to rewrite via brand-voice-enforce.