Public Content & Brand Safety Review
Review public-facing copy before publication for harmful ambiguity, unsupported claims, privacy leaks, disclosure gaps, audience risk, and brand damage.
Founders, marketers, creators, community managers, and small teams reviewing landing pages, announcements, social posts, ads, emails, and public statements.
Act as a careful public-content and brand-safety reviewer. Review the draft below before it is posted, emailed, advertised, published, or sent to customers. Preserve the intended message while identifying preventable risk.
Draft content:
{{draft_content}}
Brand, audience, channel, and goal:
{{brand_audience_channel_goal}}
Required claims, sources, disclosures, and constraints:
{{claims_sources_disclosures_constraints}}
Review it using this structure:
1. Purpose and audience fit: summarize what the content asks the audience to believe, feel, or do.
2. Claim review: flag unsupported facts, guarantees, superlatives, comparisons, performance claims, statistics, testimonials, or implied promises. Mark claims that need evidence or qualified review.
3. Safety and harm review: identify language that could encourage unsafe behavior, target vulnerable people, normalize harassment, disclose private information, or create foreseeable misuse.
4. Brand risk: flag misleading urgency, fake scarcity, manipulative framing, insensitive language, accidental insults, tone mismatch, reputational spillover, or claims that conflict with stated values.
5. Disclosure and attribution: identify missing sponsorship, affiliate, AI-assistance, source, permission, testimonial, limitation, or eligibility disclosures where context suggests they may be needed. Do not invent legal requirements.
6. Privacy and confidentiality: flag names, screenshots, customer details, internal metrics, private messages, location clues, or metadata that should not be public.
7. Severity-ranked changes: label each issue Block publication, Fix before publication, or Optional improvement.
8. Safer rewrite: produce a revised version that preserves the goal, removes unsupported certainty, and adds only disclosures supported by the provided context.
Rules: Do not make legal compliance claims. Do not invent evidence, permissions, testimonials, or disclosures. For regulated products, health claims, financial claims, political advertising, children, or high-risk audiences, recommend qualified review before publication.How to use
- Paste the draft and state the audience, channel, objective, evidence, permissions, and required disclosures.
- Resolve every block-publication item before release.
- Verify factual claims and obtain permission for names, quotes, screenshots, and customer stories.
- Use specialist review for regulated, political, health, financial, or child-directed content.
Example input
Draft: 'Our AI hiring tool eliminates bias and guarantees the best candidate every time. Sign up today before the price doubles forever.' Channel: LinkedIn ad. Evidence: internal demo only; no independent evaluation.
Example output
Block publication. The claims 'eliminates bias,' 'guarantees,' and 'best candidate every time' are absolute and unsupported. The permanent price-doubling statement may be misleading if no documented pricing decision exists. Safer rewrite: 'Use structured AI assistance to organize applicant information for human review. Join the early-access list to learn about current pricing and evaluation results.' Add clear information about human oversight and avoid fairness claims until supported by appropriate testing.
Customization tips
- — Add your brand voice and prohibited phrases to make the rewrite more consistent.
- — Ask for separate reviews of claims, tone, privacy, and disclosure when the content is complex.
- — Provide platform limits and ad-policy constraints when reviewing paid campaigns.
Tags
FAQ
Does this prompt replace legal review of advertising claims?
Can it review screenshots and visual assets?
What counts as an unsupported claim?
Should all AI-assisted content include an AI disclosure?
How are publication blockers different from optional edits?
Related Prompts
All Safety & Review prompts →Privacy-Safe Data Sharing Review
Review text, files, screenshots, or datasets before sharing them with an AI tool, vendor, colleague, or public audience.
AI Output Fact-Check & Evidence Audit
Audit an AI-generated answer for unsupported claims, weak citations, invented details, outdated facts, and misleading certainty before reuse.
High-Risk Marketing Claims Review
Review marketing copy for guarantees, health or financial implications, fake urgency, weak evidence, hidden conditions, and claims that need specialist approval.
Related Skills
Sponsored Content Disclosure and Brand Safety Reviewer
Review sponsored creator content for clear disclosure, claim risk, audience trust, privacy, brand fit, prohibited language, and approval needs.
Social Content Preflight QA Reviewer
Review social content before publishing for accuracy, claims, links, tags, captions, subtitles, visuals, disclosure, accessibility, and platform fit.
AI Governance & Compliance Checklist
Reviews an AI-related workflow, tool, or output against a practical governance checklist covering data privacy, bias, accountability, and transparency.
Related Articles
AI-Generated Content Needs Provenance and Human Grounding
AI safety is becoming more practical, focused on permissions, monitoring, refusal quality, provenance, and human review.
Are AI skills safe to download and use?
AI skills can be useful, but they should be treated like operational instructions. Users should review permissions, external actions, scripts, and unclear triggers before trusting them.
How do I redact sensitive information before using ChatGPT or Claude?
Redaction means removing or masking personal, financial, customer, credential, health, and confidential business details before sharing text with AI.