Brand Governance
I encode it into an AI skill your team invokes on every draft — so the standards get enforced by the system instead of by memory. The last time I built this, content production time dropped 40% and brand consistency went up.
Free AI Visibility snapshotNot because people don't care — because following it requires remembering a 40-page document at the exact moment you're trying to finish something. So the guide gets consulted during onboarding, then never again, and brand consistency quietly becomes a function of who happens to be writing.
Then AI arrives and the volume goes up ten times.
Here's the uncomfortable part: ungoverned AI doesn't just produce off-brand content. It produces off-brand content faster than anyone can review it. The style guide problem stops being cosmetic and starts being a compliance problem.
I take what already exists — your style guide, your best-performing content, your claims and legal rules — and encode it as a custom AI skill.
Your team writes the way they already do. The skill enforces the rules underneath.
The skill itself, installed and working in your environment
A written brand guide — because the skill is only as good as the thinking behind it
A review mode: paste in any draft, get it checked against your rules in seconds instead of a two-day thread
Training for your team, recorded
Thirty days of tuning after handover
The receipt
I took full brand style guides — voice, terminology, claims rules, formatting standards — and encoded them into custom AI skills any team member could invoke.
40%
Content production time dropped 40%. Brand consistency was better than when everything was hand-crafted, because the standards were enforced by the system instead of by memory.
Relative production time, indexed to the hand-crafted baseline. Faster and more consistent isn't the usual trade — it's what governance buys.
That's not a tools story. That's a governance story.
It isn't a prompt library. Prompts are one-offs that live in someone's notes app and get pasted wrong. This is a system your team uses without thinking about prompting at all.
It isn't a rebrand. If your brand is sound and just isn't being followed, this is the fix. If your brand genuinely needs rethinking, we do that first — say so on the call.
It isn't a subscription to me. You own it. I document it, train your team, and leave. The whole point is that it works when I'm not there.
Flat project fee, agreed before we start. No hourly billing, no scope creep — if the scope changes we agree a new number before anything moves.
Exact pricing comes with your proposal, scoped to how much brand material already exists. Companies with a current guide cost less than companies starting from a blank page.
Then we build one first. That's included in the scope — it just changes the timeline, usually by two weeks.
The approach works with any of the major models. I build in Claude by default because its skill and project structure handles governance rules best, but if your team is standardized on something else, I'll build there.
You do. Outright. Documentation and source files are handed over at the end.
Uploading a document gives the model something to consult. Encoding a skill gives it rules it applies whether anyone remembers to ask. The difference shows up on draft fifty, not draft one.
Anyone producing enough content that inconsistency has become a real cost. That's usually a team of three or more, but I've built it for a team of one who was drowning.
Yes — that's the design goal. Training is included and recorded. Most teams update it themselves within a month.
Before we talk about your brand rules, let's see what the AI engines currently say about you. It's free, it takes 48 hours, and it usually reframes the conversation.
Company, website, how a buyer would describe you, two competitors. Takes about a minute.
I make sure the request is a real business — a quick confirmation by email or phone. It's verification, not a sales call.
One page, inside 48 hours of verification: what the engines said, who they named instead of you, and whether the full report is worth running.
I run a limited number each month, so there may be a short wait. The snapshot carries no pitch — the report sells itself or it doesn't.
Takes about a minute. The more precise the last two answers, the sharper the report.
I'll only use this to run and send your snapshot. No list, no sequence you didn't ask for, and you can tell me to delete it at any time (see the privacy policy). I run a limited number each month, so there may be a short wait.