Rfp Response Quality Tone Review

Quality & Tone Review Skill

Firm Profile (REQUIRED — fill in before use)

These values define who your firm is and how it writes. See SETUP.md.

• FIRM NAME: [FIRM NAME]
• WHAT THE FIRM DOES: [one sentence]
• ROLE BOUNDARY: [what the firm will NOT claim to do — leave blank if none]
• VENDOR STANCE: [vendor-neutral OR resells/implements specific products]
• SPECIALIZATION: [domains the firm credibly claims]
• NAMED METHODOLOGY: [optional — e.g., a named multi-phase method]
• VALUE MODEL: [optional — the through-line your proposals argue]
• VOICE: [3–5 adjectives]

The voice standards in this skill are an EXAMPLE (a precise, risk-disciplined advisory firm). Replace them with your firm's actual standards derived from the VOICE values above. Keep the structure; change the content.

---

Purpose

A proposal that passes compliance may still fail on quality. This skill reviews how the draft reads — whether it sounds like [FIRM NAME], whether the narrative holds together, whether each section earns its place, and whether the language is specific and confident enough to persuade an evaluator. This is not a spell-checker; it is a structured editorial review calibrated to the firm's voice, positioning, and the buyer's evaluation audience.

---

Firm Voice Standards (EXAMPLE — customize for your firm)

Every quality finding is evaluated against these standards. Replace the examples with your own before use.

What the Firm's Voice Sounds Like

Example (precise, risk-disciplined advisory voice): writes like a trusted senior advisor to a senior decision-maker — precise, confident, evidence-grounded. Does not oversell, use promotional language, or claim what it cannot substantiate. Proposals read as authoritative assessments, not marketing collateral.

What the Firm's Voice Does Not Sound Like

---

Step 1 — Load the Draft and Inputs

1. Retrieve the compliance-reviewed and salesperson-corrected draft from the WIP Collaboration Folder.
2. Retrieve resolved and open Review Findings for this proposal (Compliance) — do not re-flag logged compliance issues; reference them only if they have a quality dimension not previously captured.
3. Retrieve the approved Content Strategy Brief (Phase 2) — assess the draft against the approved strategy, not just standalone quality.

---

Step 2 — Assess Narrative Coherence

Before individual sections, assess the proposal as a whole. Read the executive summary, then the first paragraph of each body section, then the closing. Ask:

• Does the exec summary make a clear, specific value proposition that the body sections substantiate?
• Is there logical progression across sections — does the argument build, or repeat?
• Does the proposal answer the evaluator's implicit question: "Why this firm, for this engagement, for this client, at this moment?"
• If the Firm Profile defines a VALUE MODEL, is it reflected in the overall structure?

Log coherence gaps as findings (Step 5). A coherence gap requires structural changes, not line edits.

---

Step 3 — Section-by-Section Quality Review

For each section:

3a — Opening and Framing

• Opens with relevance to the client's challenge — not a self-introduction or methodology description?
• First sentence specific enough to orient the reader?
• Flag inside-out framings ("[FIRM NAME] has extensive experience…", "Our approach is…"). Open from the client's perspective, then introduce the firm's response.

3b — Specificity and Evidence

• Does each substantive claim have a specific anchor (named methodology phase, referenced past engagement type, cited standard/framework)?
• Flag two or more consecutive sentences with no specific evidence, framework reference, or outcome.
• Flag "extensive" without a quantifier or example.

3c — Differentiator Reinforcement

• Cross-reference each section against the differentiators the Content Strategy Brief prioritised. Confirm each prioritised differentiator is present in at least one section with substantive language — not a one-line mention. Flag any that is absent from the full document.

3d — Transition and Flow

• Do sections connect logically (last sentence sets up the next, or the next heading signals progression)?
• Flag consecutive sections readable in any order without loss of meaning — suggests a missing narrative arc.

3e — Length and Proportionality

• Are sections proportional to the weight of the corresponding evaluation criterion? A 30% criterion should not get one paragraph while a 10% criterion gets a full page.
• Cross-reference section word counts against the evaluation weighting from Phase 2 (and the Page Budget Table, if present). Flag significant disproportionality.
• Flag sections over 600 words (Word) or 2 content slides (PowerPoint) that could be condensed without loss of substance.

---