Review brand

Skill gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/skills/review-brand

Stack-agnostic agentic-programming workflow skills + documentation scaffold

Install

npx -y skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-brand

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

19 stars19 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

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.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

2.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

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

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.