gtrabanco/agentic-workflow

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.

First seen Jul 2, 2026

Installation

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

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from gtrabanco/agentic-workflow · top by installs.

npx skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow

Browse all from gtrabanco/agentic-workflow

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Repository health

Stars 21
License LICENSE
Default branch main
Open issues 21
Status Active

Skill metadata

Parsed from SKILL.md frontmatter.

Version1.1.0
LicenseMIT

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 2,989 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 356 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 84 installs

SKILL.md

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.