# 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.