Use Claude to Audit Documents for Brand Voice

The key to this guide is a reusable audit prompt you can apply to any document. Start by extracting the core brand voice attributes from your guidelines:

1. Open Claude (claude.ai) — free tier works for this
2. Paste in the brand guidelines copy and run this prompt:

From these brand guidelines: [paste guidelines], extract the following for use as a brand voice audit checklist:
1. Five brand voice attributes (one-word label + brief description)
2. Five "sounds like this" examples
3. Five "does NOT sound like this" examples
4. Three common off-brand phrases to watch out for

1. Save the output — this becomes your brand voice reference card for this client

Build a standard audit prompt that you'll reuse for every document check:

Here is our brand voice reference for [Client Name]:
[paste the extracted voice attributes and examples from Step 1]

Please audit the following document for brand voice consistency:
[paste document text]

For each issue you find:
1. Quote the specific phrase or sentence
2. Explain why it doesn't match the brand voice
3. Suggest a revised version that does match

At the end, rate the overall brand voice consistency: Strong / Moderate / Needs Work, with 2-3 sentences of summary feedback.

Save this prompt template (in Notes, a Google Doc, or a Notion page) so you can reuse it without retyping.

1. Open Claude
2. Paste your audit prompt with the brand voice reference and the document you're checking
3. Wait 5-15 seconds for the response

What you should see: A list of specific flagged phrases, each with the original text, reason it's off-brand, and a suggested revision. Then a summary rating.

Troubleshooting: If Claude flags too many minor things, add to your prompt: "Only flag significant voice issues — ignore minor word choices. Focus on tone, formality level, and vocabulary that strongly contradicts the brand voice."

Work through Claude's flagged items:

• Accept revisions that clearly improve brand alignment
• Override suggestions where the "off-brand" language was intentional (e.g., a formal tone in a legal section of an SOW)
• Note patterns — if the same team member consistently uses off-brand language in a specific way, that's training feedback