rubric.md

Brand Voice Rubric

Score each criterion 1-5. Copy must score 4+ on ALL criteria to pass.

1. Technical Grounding (1-5)

Does the copy make specific, verifiable technical claims?

Score Description
5 Precise technical details that can be verified (specs, architecture, measurable outcomes)
4 Concrete technical claims with clear meaning
3 Mix of specific and vague technical references
2 Mostly abstract with occasional technical terms
1 No technical substance; pure marketing language

Examples:

  • ✅ "Written in Rust with GPU-accelerated rendering at 120fps"
  • ❌ "Blazingly fast performance that will transform your workflow"

2. Natural Syntax (1-5)

Does the writing flow like natural speech from a thoughtful developer?

Score Description
5 Varied sentence structure, natural rhythm, reads aloud smoothly
4 Mostly natural with minor rhythm issues
3 Some AI patterns visible but not dominant
2 Obvious structural patterns (parallel triplets, em dash chains)
1 Robotic cadence, formulaic construction throughout

Red flags: Em dash overuse, "It's not X, it's Y" constructions, triple parallel lists, sentences all same length.

3. Quiet Confidence (1-5)

Does the copy state facts without hype or emotional manipulation?

Score Description
5 Facts speak for themselves; reader draws own conclusions
4 Confident statements with minimal flourish
3 Some restraint but occasional hype creeps in
2 Frequent superlatives or emotional appeals
1 Aggressive marketing tone, telling reader how to feel

Examples:

  • ✅ "Zed renders every frame on the GPU. You'll notice the difference when you scroll."
  • ❌ "Experience the revolutionary speed that will absolutely transform how you code!"

4. Developer Respect (1-5)

Does the copy treat the reader as a peer, not a prospect?

Score Description
5 Peer-to-peer conversation; assumes technical competence
4 Respectful with appropriate technical depth
3 Slightly patronizing or oversimplified
2 Condescending explanations or forced enthusiasm
1 Treats reader as uninformed consumer to be persuaded

Examples:

  • ✅ "Tree-sitter provides incremental parsing, so syntax highlighting updates as you type."
  • ❌ "Don't worry about the technical details — just know it's fast!"

5. Information Priority (1-5)

Is the most important information first?

Score Description
5 Key fact or change leads; context follows naturally
4 Important info near top with minor preamble
3 Buried lede but recoverable
2 Significant buildup before substance
1 Key information buried or missing entirely

Examples:

  • ✅ "Inline completions now stream token-by-token. Previously, you waited for the full response."
  • ❌ "We've been thinking a lot about the developer experience, and after months of work, we're thrilled to share that..."

6. Specificity (1-5)

Are claims concrete and measurable?

Score Description
5 Every claim is specific and verifiable
4 Mostly specific with rare abstractions
3 Mix of concrete and vague claims
2 Mostly abstract benefits
1 All claims are vague or unverifiable

Examples:

  • ✅ "Startup time under 100ms on M1 Macs"
  • ❌ "Lightning-fast startup that respects your time"

7. Voice Consistency (1-5)

Does the tone remain unified throughout?

Score Description
5 Single coherent voice from start to finish
4 Minor tonal shifts that don't distract
3 Noticeable drift between sections
2 Multiple competing voices
1 Jarring tonal inconsistency

Check for: Shifts between casual/formal, technical/marketing, confident/hedging.

8. Earned Claims (1-5)

Are assertions supported or supportable?

Score Description
5 Every claim can be demonstrated or verified
4 Claims are reasonable and mostly verifiable
3 Some unsupported assertions
2 Multiple unverifiable superlatives
1 Bold claims with no backing

Examples:

  • ✅ "Built by the team behind Atom and Tree-sitter"
  • ❌ "The most advanced editor ever created"

Quick Scoring Template

| Criterion           | Score | Notes |
|---------------------|-------|-------|
| Technical Grounding |   /5  |       |
| Natural Syntax      |   /5  |       |
| Quiet Confidence    |   /5  |       |
| Developer Respect   |   /5  |       |
| Information Priority|   /5  |       |
| Specificity         |   /5  |       |
| Voice Consistency   |   /5  |       |
| Earned Claims       |   /5  |       |
| **TOTAL**           |  /40  |       |

Pass threshold: 32/40 (all criteria 4+)

Decision Rules

  • All 4+: Copy passes. Minor polish optional.
  • Any 3: Rewrite flagged sections, re-score.
  • Any 2 or below: Full reconstruction required.
  • Multiple failures: Start fresh with new approach.