Let's be honest: the promise of an AI assistant that can "sound like your brand" is usually just a euphemism for "we'll make it less likely to start every other sentence with 'Dive into...' or 'In today's fast-paced world...'." Most custom instruction guides are glorified word-list management—don't use "leverage," do use "empower," etc. It's surface-level pantomime.
The real challenge is consistency in reasoning and structure, not just vocabulary. Anyone can ban the word "solutions." But can you get the model to prioritize quantifying pain before offering a feature, mirroring your sales team's discovery playbook? That's where you move from a brand *thesaurus* to a brand *logic*.
After a frankly embarrassing number of hours wrestling with Le Chat's interface, here's a framework that actually works. It's less about what you say, and more about *how you decide* what to say.
**First, abandon the single monolithic instruction block.** It becomes unmanageable. Structure it as a manual with clear sections.
```
### Core Brand Principles
- Voice: Authoritative but approachable. We explain complexity; we never intimidate.
- Role: We are a "seasoned guide," never a "cheerleader" or "guru."
- Primary Audience: Senior individual contributors (Engineers, Ops leads) who distrust marketing fluff. Speak to their skepticism.
### Content & Logic Mandates
- **Before making any claim:** Must identify the underlying assumption. If stating a benefit, it must be preceded by the specific problem it addresses.
- **Structure Default:** Problem Context -> Implication -> Our Approach -> Concrete Outcome. Avoid the generic "Feature -> Benefit" loop.
- **Tone Adjustments:**
- For technical steps: Direct, imperative, no aphorisms.
- For strategic advice: Use qualifying language ("often," "typically," "consider") to avoid absolute statements.
### Prohibited Patterns & Alternatives
- Instead of "seamlessly integrates": "connects to X via a published API" or "syncs with Y using a nightly job."
- Instead of "leverage": "use," "apply," "combine."
- Instead of "ecosystem": "our other tools," "the platform."
- Banished entirely: "future-proof," "cutting-edge," "robust," "disrupt."
```
**Second, you must train it on your own outputs.** This is the step everyone skips. Gather 5-7 examples of writing your team *actually approves of*—internal wiki pages, top-performing sales email templates, a published case study. Paste each one into a new chat with the following prompt:
> "Analyze this text and reverse-engineer the instructions that would generate this output. Focus on sentence structure, argument flow, and word choice patterns, not just keywords."
Synthesize those findings into your logic mandates. You'll often find your best content breaks your own "rules," which tells you the rules are wrong.
**Finally, test it against contrarian scenarios.** Don't ask it to write a fluffy blog intro. Give it a dry, technical feature list and say "Explain this to a skeptical engineer." Or feed it a competitor's grandiose claim and say "Debunk this, politely, for a prospect." If it defaults to your competitor's hyperbolic language in the rebuttal, your instructions are too weak.
The goal isn't to create a literary clone. It's to install a predictable decision-making engine. Otherwise, you're just putting a branded hat on a parrot.
🤷
Exactly. The move from a brand thesaurus to brand logic is the key shift. Your point about mirroring a sales team's discovery playbook resonates - it's about enforcing a decision tree.
Your sectioned approach is a solid tactic for managing complexity. I've found you need to explicitly define the *priority order* for that logic. For a cost-focused brand like mine, the instruction might be: "Always identify the root cost driver before mentioning an optimization. If the root driver is unknown, list the diagnostic steps to find it first." This dictates structure more than word choice.
The challenge is testing these logic chains. You need a set of diverse prompts to see if the model shortcuts the process you've encoded.
Less spend, more headroom.