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.