Content check: Detect risks & errors automaticallyCopy

Act as our nonprofit's quality assurance editor. I need you to check a content draft.

# DATA:

## Our Brand Voice:
**PASTE your brand voice description here. Example: "Our tone is hopeful, authoritative, and community-focused. We use clear, simple language and avoid jargon. We aim to inspire action, not guilt. We like the words A,B,C and want to avoid using the words X,Y,Z"**

## Content Goal & platform:
**Briefly state the goal and where it will be published. Example: "We want to get existing supporters to sign up for our new volunteer day. It will be published in our newsletter and blog."**

## Content Draft:
**PASTE the full text of your social media post, short email, etc.**

# REQUEST:

Check if you find any errors or big improvement opportunities in the draft. Focus especially on these these four areas:

1. Brand Voice Alignment: 
Does the tone match our brand voice? Point out the biggest misalignments if they exist.

2. Clarity & Purpose: 
Is the main message and call-to-action (CTA) perfectly clear? 

3. Inclusivity & Risk: 
Are there any red flags related to exclusionary language, potential bias, or insensitive phrasing?

4. Critical Errors: 
List any critical spelling or grammatical mistakes that harm credibility. 

# OUTPUT:

Provide a list of specific improvement ideas. Give priority to the biggest errors and risks. 
If there are no errors or clear things to improve, just say "Looks OK".

Act as an expert compliance officer and project manager. I need you to perform a detailed compliance and goal-alignment review of my draft against its requirements.

# DATA:
I have uploaded **(or pasted below)** the following:
1.  The content draft: **Describe content, e.g., "Annual Report 2025 Draft"**
2.  The guidelines/brief: **Describe document, e.g., "Funder RFP Document"**

# REQUEST:
Conduct a thorough check by creating a three-part report:

1.  Requirement Extraction: List every single requirement from the guidelines document. Include requirements for:
    - Formatting (e.g., page limits, font size, margins, file type).
    - Structure (e.g., required sections, specific headers, table of contents).
    - Content (e.g., specific questions that must be answered, keywords to include, attachments).

2.  Compliance Verification: For each requirement you listed, indicate its status in my draft:
    - ✅ COMPLETE: Requirement is fully met (cite page/section).
    - ⚠️ PARTIAL: Requirement is partially addressed (explain what's missing).
    - ❌ MISSING: Requirement is not addressed at all.
    - 🔄 UNKNOWN: You don't have enough info to judge if the requirement is met or not

3.  Goal Alignment: Beyond technical requirements, assess if the draft is strategically aligned with its main goal. Is the core purpose of the document clear and consistently supported throughout?

OK, now I need you to switch roles. 

Act as a member of our target audience: 
**Briefly describe your audience, e.g., "a busy foundation program officer," or "a first-time donor who is passionate about our cause but has limited time."**

# REQUEST:
Using the following questions as your guide, identify all issues related to persuasiveness and clarity.

-   The Hook Test: Does the opening grab attention?
-   The "So What?" Test: Is the core message and its importance immediately clear?
-   Friction & Drop-off Points: Are there confusing, boring, or overly technical sections?
-   Logical Flow: Does the argument make sense from section to section?
-   Call-to-Action (CTA) Strength: Is the CTA weak, unclear, or uninspiring?

# OUTPUT:
For each issue you find, create a list item. Provide:
-   Current text: [The specific text with the issue]
-   Suggested revision: [Your proposed improvement]
-   Reason for change: [Explain why the change is needed based on the assessment criteria above]

Prioritize issues as:
-   CRITICAL: Must fix (major clarity or persuasion failures that risk losing the audience).
-   IMPORTANT: Should fix (clarity, flow, and logical issues).
-   MINOR: Consider fixing (stylistic improvements to enhance persuasiveness).

OK, now put on your "editor for responsible and inclusive communications" hat. I need a detailed audit of the content's accuracy and language.


# REQUEST:
Review the draft and create a report with the following sections:

1.  Factual Accuracy & Evidence:
    - List every statistic, data point, or bold claim mentioned.
    - For each, note if a source is cited.
    - Flag any claims that seem unsubstantiated and mark them with [EVIDENCE NEEDED].
    - Flag any data that appears outdated (e.g., older than 3-5 years) and suggest searching for a more current source.

2.  Inclusivity & Bias Scan:
    - Language: Flag any language that might be exclusionary or make assumptions about beneficiaries based on geography, socioeconomic status, gender, age, ability, or culture.
    - Terminology: Identify any outdated terms and suggest current, respectful alternatives.

3.  Language & Framing:
    - Deficit vs. Asset Framing: Review how we describe our beneficiaries. Are we using strength-based, dignified language rather than deficit-based "savior" language? Highlight any areas for improvement.
    - Power Dynamics: Check for a paternalistic tone. For example, does the language reflect "partnering with" the community versus "helping" or "saving" them?
    - Jargon & Accessibility: List any insider terms or acronyms that an external reader might not understand. Suggest simpler alternatives or definitions.

IMPORTANT:     
Do your own online research whenever necessary (especially regarding "Factual Accuracy & Evidence"). Don't reply until you have reliable data/links to back your conclusions. If you are not able to access websites or do complex online research, let me know and recommend alternative solutions. 


# OUTPUT:
Give me a prioritized list of all issues found. For each issue, provide:
-   Current text: [The specific text with the issue]
-   Suggested revision: [Your proposed improvement]
-   Reason for change: [Explain the problem, e.g., "Unsubstantiated claim," "Uses deficit-based framing," "Potential for bias."]

Prioritize issues as:
-   CRITICAL: Must fix (factual errors, highly biased, or exclusionary language).
-   IMPORTANT: Should fix (unsubstantiated claims, jargon, "savior" tone).
-   MINOR: Consider fixing (subtle framing improvements).

The strategic review is complete. For the final step, please perform a meticulous proofread and brand voice check.

# PROOFREADING ANALYSIS:
Review the text for errors and deviations related to:

1.  Grammar, Spelling, & Punctuation: Identify all objective errors.

2.  Clarity & Readability:
    - Flag overly complex sentences and suggest ways to shorten or split them.
    - Identify passive voice constructions that could be more powerful in the active voice.
    - Highlight unclear pronoun references (e.g., "it," "they," "this").

3.  Consistency:
    - Verify consistent use of key terms, capitalization (e.g., organizational name), and acronyms (defined at first use).
    - Check that number and date formatting is consistent throughout the document.

4.  Brand Voice Tone:
    - Pinpoint specific words or sentences that feel "off-brand" compared to our brand voice (explained already in this conversation)
    - Suggest alternative phrasing that better aligns with our tone.


# OUTPUT:
Give me a prioritized list of all recommended edits. For each issue found, provide:
-   Current text: [The specific text with the issue]
-   Suggested revision: [The corrected version]
-   Reason for change: [Categorize as Grammar, Spelling, Consistency, Clarity, or Brand Voice Tone]

Prioritize issues as:
-   CRITICAL: Must fix (spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors that damage credibility).
-   IMPORTANT: Should fix (consistency errors, unclear sentences).
-   MINOR: Consider fixing (stylistic suggestions, minor brand voice tweaks).

Based on our entire conversation and the review process for this document, please create a concise "Lessons Learned" summary we can use to improve our future work.

# REQUEST:
Generate a brief report with three sections:

1.  Strengths to Replicate: Identify 2-3 things (e.g., a strong argument, a well-phrased sentence, an effective data point) from the final version that we should reuse or replicate in future content.

2.  Recurring Issues to Address: What were the most common weaknesses you found in the initial draft (e.g., passive voice, lack of evidence, brand voice misalignment)? This will help us identify training needs.

3.  Process Improvements: Suggest one concrete thing we could do differently next time to make the content creation or review process more efficient or effective (e.g., "Create a pre-approved statistics sheet," or "Develop a checklist for RFP requirements before writing begins").