How do I install the Review Brand skill?

Run npx get-skill add gtrabanco/review-brand in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Review Brand safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Independent scanners report: SkillSpector: PASS, Skill Scanner: PASS. Capability flags: reads secrets. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Review Brand?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Review Brand free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free. This skill is licensed under MIT.

Who published Review Brand?

gtrabanco (@gtrabanco) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Review Brand by gtrabanco — Agent Skill

Name: Review Brand
Author: gtrabanco

Review Brand

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.

gtrabanco Updated Nov 11, 2026

File contents

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 caller's diff or path/glob — the shape is the finder contract's (skills/review-implementation/references/FINDER_CONTRACT.md, this section's owner). 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 WARNING 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

The bar is owned by skills/review-implementation/references/FINDER_CONTRACT.md — apply it as written: cite the rule it violates beside the evidence; never pad the table.

Return exactly

Sev and Impact are the two published closed sets (BLOCKER | CRITICAL | WARNING | SUGGESTION and blocking | docs-only | report-only); their meanings are owned by review-implementation (CLASSIFY.md §Severity ladder) — assign a token, never a prose grade.

REVIEW BRAND — scope: <scope>

| # | Finding | Sev | Impact | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|--------|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what>  | BLOCKER|CRITICAL|WARNING|SUGGESTION | blocking|docs-only|report-only | <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 BLOCKER, CRITICAL or WARNING finding is open; PASS otherwise. SUGGESTION 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.

---name: review-branduser-invocable: falseversion: 4.10.0author: "Gabriel Trabanco <1969593+gtrabanco@users.noreply.github.com>"license: MITdescription: > 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.metadata: source: https://skillmd.com/skills/gtrabanco/review-brand---# Review Brand & Copy (internal)Composed by `review-change` / `product-audit` within their conversation — on anyagent, follow this file inline as the routed step. **Findings only; never edits,never refactors.**## ScopeThe caller's diff or path/glob — the shape is the finder contract's(`skills/review-implementation/references/FINDER_CONTRACT.md`, this section's owner). State the scope at the top of thereturned 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 `WARNING` 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 barThe bar is owned by `skills/review-implementation/references/FINDER_CONTRACT.md` —apply it as written: cite the rule it violates beside the evidence; never pad the table.## Return exactly`Sev` and `Impact` are the two published closed sets (`BLOCKER | CRITICAL |WARNING | SUGGESTION` and `blocking | docs-only | report-only`); their meaningsare owned by `review-implementation` (`CLASSIFY.md` §Severity ladder) — assign atoken, never a prose grade.```REVIEW BRAND — scope: <scope>| # | Finding | Sev | Impact | Evidence | Suggested fix ||---|---------|-----|--------|----------|---------------|| 1 | <what> | BLOCKER|CRITICAL|WARNING|SUGGESTION | blocking|docs-only|report-only | <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 `BLOCKER`, `CRITICAL` or `WARNING` finding is open; PASS otherwise.`SUGGESTION` 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.

Frequently asked questions