b72a46db68
Some checks failed
Update All Top Ranking Issues / update_top_ranking_issues (push) Has been cancelled
Triage Project Sync (#84) / Sync triage project (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / notify_on_failure (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / check_style (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / run_tests_windows (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / clippy_windows (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / bundle_linux_aarch64 (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / bundle_linux_x86_64 (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / bundle_mac_aarch64 (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / bundle_mac_x86_64 (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / bundle_windows_aarch64 (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / bundle_windows_x86_64 (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / build_nix_linux_x86_64 (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / build_nix_mac_aarch64 (push) Has been cancelled
release_nightly / update_nightly_tag (push) Has been cancelled
Hotfix Review Monitor / check-hotfix-reviews (push) Has been cancelled
Stale PR Review Reminder / check-stale-prs (push) Has been cancelled
Update Weekly Top Ranking Issues / update_top_ranking_issues (push) Has been cancelled
Bump collab-staging Tag / update-collab-staging-tag (push) Has been cancelled
compliance_check / scheduled_compliance_check (push) Has been cancelled
Single-commit orphan branch: full zed-industries/zed @ 8c74db0 source tree with a 3-file patch applied (no upstream history). Patch (crates/gpui_linux/src/linux/wayland/): - serial.rs: add SerialKind::KeyboardEnter - client.rs: store wl_keyboard.enter serial; add latest_serial_of() - window.rs: activate() uses keyboard-enter serial (Mutter focus gate) Mutter honors window activation only when the token carries the keyboard- focus serial from wl_keyboard.enter; GPUI used a stale mouse-press serial. See docs/tray-window-focus-wayland.md in logiguard. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
179 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
179 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|