1# Brand Voice Rubric
2
3Score each criterion 1-5. Copy must score **4+ on ALL criteria** to pass.
4
5---
6
7## 1. Technical Grounding (1-5)
8
9Does the copy make specific, verifiable technical claims?
10
11| Score | Description |
12| ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
13| 5 | Precise technical details that can be verified (specs, architecture, measurable outcomes) |
14| 4 | Concrete technical claims with clear meaning |
15| 3 | Mix of specific and vague technical references |
16| 2 | Mostly abstract with occasional technical terms |
17| 1 | No technical substance; pure marketing language |
18
19**Examples:**
20
21- ✅ "Written in Rust with GPU-accelerated rendering at 120fps"
22- ❌ "Blazingly fast performance that will transform your workflow"
23
24---
25
26## 2. Natural Syntax (1-5)
27
28Does the writing flow like natural speech from a thoughtful developer?
29
30| Score | Description |
31| ----- | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
32| 5 | Varied sentence structure, natural rhythm, reads aloud smoothly |
33| 4 | Mostly natural with minor rhythm issues |
34| 3 | Some AI patterns visible but not dominant |
35| 2 | Obvious structural patterns (parallel triplets, em dash chains) |
36| 1 | Robotic cadence, formulaic construction throughout |
37
38**Red flags:** Em dash overuse, "It's not X, it's Y" constructions, triple parallel lists, sentences all same length.
39
40---
41
42## 3. Quiet Confidence (1-5)
43
44Does the copy state facts without hype or emotional manipulation?
45
46| Score | Description |
47| ----- | -------------------------------------------------------- |
48| 5 | Facts speak for themselves; reader draws own conclusions |
49| 4 | Confident statements with minimal flourish |
50| 3 | Some restraint but occasional hype creeps in |
51| 2 | Frequent superlatives or emotional appeals |
52| 1 | Aggressive marketing tone, telling reader how to feel |
53
54**Examples:**
55
56- ✅ "Zed renders every frame on the GPU. You'll notice the difference when you scroll."
57- ❌ "Experience the revolutionary speed that will absolutely transform how you code!"
58
59---
60
61## 4. Developer Respect (1-5)
62
63Does the copy treat the reader as a peer, not a prospect?
64
65| Score | Description |
66| ----- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
67| 5 | Peer-to-peer conversation; assumes technical competence |
68| 4 | Respectful with appropriate technical depth |
69| 3 | Slightly patronizing or oversimplified |
70| 2 | Condescending explanations or forced enthusiasm |
71| 1 | Treats reader as uninformed consumer to be persuaded |
72
73**Examples:**
74
75- ✅ "Tree-sitter provides incremental parsing, so syntax highlighting updates as you type."
76- ❌ "Don't worry about the technical details — just know it's fast!"
77
78---
79
80## 5. Information Priority (1-5)
81
82Is the most important information first?
83
84| Score | Description |
85| ----- | --------------------------------------------------- |
86| 5 | Key fact or change leads; context follows naturally |
87| 4 | Important info near top with minor preamble |
88| 3 | Buried lede but recoverable |
89| 2 | Significant buildup before substance |
90| 1 | Key information buried or missing entirely |
91
92**Examples:**
93
94- ✅ "Inline completions now stream token-by-token. Previously, you waited for the full response."
95- ❌ "We've been thinking a lot about the developer experience, and after months of work, we're thrilled to share that..."
96
97---
98
99## 6. Specificity (1-5)
100
101Are claims concrete and measurable?
102
103| Score | Description |
104| ----- | -------------------------------------- |
105| 5 | Every claim is specific and verifiable |
106| 4 | Mostly specific with rare abstractions |
107| 3 | Mix of concrete and vague claims |
108| 2 | Mostly abstract benefits |
109| 1 | All claims are vague or unverifiable |
110
111**Examples:**
112
113- ✅ "Startup time under 100ms on M1 Macs"
114- ❌ "Lightning-fast startup that respects your time"
115
116---
117
118## 7. Voice Consistency (1-5)
119
120Does the tone remain unified throughout?
121
122| Score | Description |
123| ----- | ------------------------------------------ |
124| 5 | Single coherent voice from start to finish |
125| 4 | Minor tonal shifts that don't distract |
126| 3 | Noticeable drift between sections |
127| 2 | Multiple competing voices |
128| 1 | Jarring tonal inconsistency |
129
130**Check for:** Shifts between casual/formal, technical/marketing, confident/hedging.
131
132---
133
134## 8. Earned Claims (1-5)
135
136Are assertions supported or supportable?
137
138| Score | Description |
139| ----- | ------------------------------------------- |
140| 5 | Every claim can be demonstrated or verified |
141| 4 | Claims are reasonable and mostly verifiable |
142| 3 | Some unsupported assertions |
143| 2 | Multiple unverifiable superlatives |
144| 1 | Bold claims with no backing |
145
146**Examples:**
147
148- ✅ "Built by the team behind Atom and Tree-sitter"
149- ❌ "The most advanced editor ever created"
150
151---
152
153## Quick Scoring Template
154
155```
156| Criterion | Score | Notes |
157|---------------------|-------|-------|
158| Technical Grounding | /5 | |
159| Natural Syntax | /5 | |
160| Quiet Confidence | /5 | |
161| Developer Respect | /5 | |
162| Information Priority| /5 | |
163| Specificity | /5 | |
164| Voice Consistency | /5 | |
165| Earned Claims | /5 | |
166| **TOTAL** | /40 | |
167
168Pass threshold: 32/40 (all criteria 4+)
169```
170
171---
172
173## Decision Rules
174
175- **All 4+:** Copy passes. Minor polish optional.
176- **Any 3:** Rewrite flagged sections, re-score.
177- **Any 2 or below:** Full reconstruction required.
178- **Multiple failures:** Start fresh with new approach.