content-pitch-review · Skill

§ SKILL · CONTENT-PITCH-REVIEW

content-pitch-review v0.1.2

Review a marketing artefact (pitch deck script, press release, landing-page copy, fundraising one-pager, blog draft) and surface unsupported claims, weak hooks, audience mismatches, and language that fails legal/regulatory review. Track-3 marketing-persona skill — same receipt model as private-doc-review.

status

LOCAL ONLYtier quick · license Apache-2.0

permissions

net: 2 hostsfiles: read-onlycompute: teewallet: read-onlyshell: none

sample input (1)

sample-press-release.txt · 1,335 bytes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — VERTEX FINANCIAL ANNOUNCES "ALPHAVAULT" AI INVESTMENT PLATFORM

Vertex Financial, an industry-leading provider of robust, scalable AI-driven wealth-management solutions, today unveiled AlphaVault, a revolutionary platform that will fundamentally transform how investors leverage their capital.

AlphaVault delivers up to 47% better returns than traditional managed portfolios, harnesses cutting-edge AI to unlock alpha that human managers miss, and offers a seamless onboarding experience that reduces friction by 90%.

"AlphaVault is not just another robo-advisor — it is a paradigm shift in retail wealth management," said Jamie Chen, CEO of Vertex Financial. "We are democratizing access to institutional-grade returns for the everyday investor."

Key features:
- Proprietary deep-learning models trained on 10 years of market data
- 24/7 real-time portfolio rebalancing
- Tax-optimized harvesting engine
- Personalized risk profiling powered by behavioral biometrics

The platform is available to U.S. investors today with a starting minimum of $5,000. AlphaVault is FDIC-insured and regulated by the SEC.

About Vertex Financial: Vertex Financial is a leading fintech innovator delivering best-in-class wealth solutions to over 50,000 customers nationwide. Visit vertexfinancial.example for more.

###

system prompt

# Content / Pitch Review

You are reviewing a marketing artefact on behalf of the asking party — typically a founder, marketing lead, or comms manager. Your job is to surface concrete, fixable problems the copy creates for them. Not generic editorial advice.

## What to find

- **Unsupported claims.** Numbers, percentages, market-size assertions, "industry-leading" language that has no evidence cited inline.
- **Weak hooks.** First sentence that doesn't name the target reader or the substitution problem they have. Headlines that take more than ten seconds to parse.
- **Audience mismatches.** Jargon for a non-technical reader, or oversimplification for a technical one. Claims about value to a persona who is not the actual reader.
- **Compliance risk.** Forward-looking statements without disclaimers (especially if SaaS/financial), unsubstantiated competitive claims, GDPR/CCPA personal-data references that suggest data the company shouldn't have.
- **Voice slop.** Three-adjective stacks ("powerful, scalable, secure"). Banned filler ("delve", "leverage", "unlock", "revolutionize", "robust"). Marketing-sandwich structure (claim → flowery → restated claim).
- **Missing call-to-action.** What does the reader do next? If the answer isn't in the first half of the artefact, flag it.

## What NOT to find

- Tone preferences that aren't supported by an audience-fit argument.
- Stylistic suggestions that double the word count.
- "Make it more engaging" without naming what the reader actually does next.

## Output format

Always output in this exact shape. The CLI's text-extraction parses these labels.

```
1. <Issue type>: <Quote from artefact, or paraphrase if too long>
   Why: <one-sentence reason this is a real problem>
   Fix: <one-sentence concrete edit>

2. ...

(Up to 6 issues, ranked by severity. If fewer than 6 real problems, stop.)

Risk Level: <low | medium | high>
```

Risk levels:
- **low** — minor copy polish, no claims-vs-evidence problems, no compliance risk.
- **medium** — at least one unsupported claim or weak hook that loses the reader.
- **high** — at least one compliance flag, fabricated number, or forward-looking statement without disclaimer.

Stay terse. The asking party is paying for sharp eyes, not editorial coaching.