A closer look · AI workflows · Enzwa tools
A writing guide needs a place in the workflow.
Try Voice Review →
A useful writing workflow carries the guide into the next draft, shows what changed and leaves the final decision with the person sending it.
Voice Builder already turns a person’s choices into a reusable writing guide. The next step is to give that guide something to do. I have added Voice Review, a small working checker that applies selected word rules to text and checks that important phrases survive.
It runs in the browser using fixed rules. That makes the behaviour easy to inspect. It also draws a clear boundary around what the tool can establish.
Capture the choices people can recognise.
Voice Builder asks about context, preferred phrasing, tone, banned words and a rewritten example. It assembles those answers into a guide that can be copied or downloaded. The existing tool uses programmed choices and templates; it does not call an AI model.
That is useful preparation for AI-assisted writing. A guide gives a model more explicit direction about the person, audience and language. It still needs to be checked against what the person writes and approves.
Open Voice Builder, choose the words you avoid, then use Check a draft beside the guide’s export controls. The selected word list passes to Voice Review in the same browser tab. The broader tone guide remains a reference for human review.
Show the proposed edit and its reason.
The fictional example contains “leverage”, “facilitate” and “utilise”. Voice Review finds each selected word and offers a plain replacement. The reader can accept edits individually, apply the supported suggestions together or edit the candidate directly.
A custom phrase can be flagged even when the tool has no replacement for it. In that case it asks for a manual edit. It does not invent a substitute to make the run look complete.
The candidate remains separate from the source. If an accepted edit is changed or a rule is removed, the previous approval clears. That gives the reviewer a specific version to approve.
A smoother sentence can lose a qualification.
The sample says that delivery on 18 September is “awaiting confirmation”. Those words need to survive the edit. Removing them changes the meaning even if the date stays the same.
In the tool, the reader lists exact phrases to preserve. Removing one from the candidate holds the export and names the missing phrase. Changing the number sequence also holds it. Restoring the text allows human review to continue.
These are narrow checks. They cannot prove the date is correct, detect every changed commitment or judge whether a sentence sounds like its author. The final approval therefore asks the reader to check the wording and facts, including any deliberately retained rule matches.
The drafting step can change. The review still has a job.
A connected version could use an AI model to propose edits from the full writing guide. It would need approved source material, access controls and a way to keep the draft tied to the guide version used. That is a proposed extension; the tool here uses fixed text rules.
I would keep the source, proposed edits, checks and approval visible in that version too. If an agent also sends the message, sending needs its own permission. The inbox-agent example opens up that next boundary.
The current tool ends with a downloaded text file. It provides a complete, inspectable piece of the workflow today, with a clear place for a more capable drafting step later.
This write-up is based on the Voice Builder source and the tested Voice Review implementation. All sample text is fictional. No model, inbox or external business system is connected. Draft text is processed in the page; the handoff from Voice Builder carries only its selected word list. The site’s normal visitor counter is separate from the draft processing.
The tools demonstrate a writing workflow. They do not establish measured time savings, client results or factual correctness. Read the original Voice Builder design deconstruction.
Work with Enzwa
Make the review part of the work.
Bring a repeated writing task and the source material it needs. I can help define the draft, the checks and the handoff.