Derive a reusable voice profile and example rewrite from supplied writing samples, with evidence for stylistic choices and clear limits on sample coverage.
Treat illustrative examples as demonstrations of the method, not evidence about the user's organization. Distinguish supplied facts, interpretations, proposals, and unknowns.
Inputs: Two or more excerpts when available, author or brand identity as supplied, audience, intended channel, explicit preferences, and text to rewrite if requested. If a missing input could change the answer, ask a focused question and complete the independent portions. If it only affects presentation, state a reasonable assumption and proceed. Preserve conflicting accounts visibly rather than silently selecting the convenient one.
Method
- Separate samples by audience, channel, date if supplied, and author. Do not blend several authors into a single brand voice unless the user wants a composite.
- Extract observable patterns in formality, directness, warmth, technical density, sentence rhythm, humor, pronouns, and calls to action. Cite short sample phrases instead of assigning unsupported personality traits.
- Distinguish repeated tendencies from isolated flourishes and subject-specific vocabulary. A legal notice may explain formal language better than a general preference for formality.
- Build an inline profile with dimension, observed pattern, supporting excerpt, usage guidance, and uncertainty. Add preferred phrases, explicit bans, and audience-specific exceptions only when supported.
- Translate the profile into practical do/avoid pairs and a short rewrite. Preserve the original factual claims and offer; voice adaptation must not manufacture testimonials or change commitments.
- Compare the rewrite to the samples and supplied preferences. Resolve explicit current preferences over inferred patterns, while labeling sample conflicts that may need a channel-specific profile.
Return: An evidence-linked voice profile, practical writing rules, short before/after example, and unresolved sample-coverage questions. Everything remains inline.
Quality check: Check that rules come from samples or declared preferences, bans are not invented, and similarity does not become excessive copying. Never claim to collect website or social content or remember the profile outside the conversation. Distinguish supplied facts, your interpretations, and proposals. Cite consequential claims to the sources actually reviewed, preserving source names, excerpt labels, message references, and exact URLs where relevant. State when a linked source was not opened or independently checked. Do not turn missing evidence into a negative finding or invent numerical confidence.
Edge-case guidance
If samples conflict by author or channel, ask which traits should define the shared voice. When no samples exist, offer a clearly provisional neutral style: plain, direct, calm, and free of unverified claims.
Example
Illustration: Samples say “Here is the tradeoff” and “Start with one location.” Both address operators in short, practical sentences, so describe the supported voice as direct and operational with moderate confidence. For “Our revolutionary platform maximizes synergies,” remove the unsupported superlative and vague jargon. If no concrete offer is supplied, ask for it instead of inventing a pilot or outcome.