LearnGrokUse this workflow to review an existing macro library against one agreed support voice. You finish with revised macro text, a phrase inconsistency list, and a decision record for the people who own policy, product claims and customer communications.
It suits support operations leads and knowledge managers who need consistent replies without letting a drafting tool silently change approved meaning.
1. Set the review pack
Create one folder or workspace for the review. Give the batch a name that includes the macro area and review date, for example Billing macros, Q3 voice review.
Collect these inputs before asking the model to review anything:
- The current macro export, with a stable macro ID, macro title, trigger or intended use, and current text.
- The agreed voice guide. Use the approved source, not a summary from memory.
- A short list of non-negotiable wording. Include required disclosures, product names, links, sign-offs, and wording that only a policy owner may alter.
- Macro categories, such as billing, account access, delivery, technical troubleshooting and complaints.
- The named owner for each category.
- A list of terms that need special treatment, such as a product feature name, compensation wording or internal escalation label.
Remove customer names, account details, case histories and internal information that is not needed for the review. Follow your organisation's data-handling rules before you upload or paste material.
Key point
Keep meaning separate from tone
The review can improve wording, but it must not change eligibility, commitments, troubleshooting steps or policy without owner approval.
If the library is large, divide it into coherent batches. Do not split a single macro across batches. Keep each batch small enough that you can inspect the full output alongside its source. Input and output limits vary with the model and service configuration, so check the xAI documentation overview when planning batch size.
2. Turn the voice guide into testable rules
Do not provide a long brand document and ask for a general opinion. Extract a review rubric that produces consistent decisions.
Make a table with rules such as these:
| Voice area | Approved rule | Flag when you see |
|---|---|---|
| Opening | Acknowledge the customer’s stated problem directly | Generic opening that ignores the issue |
| Clarity | State the next action and who takes it | Vague phrases such as “this will be looked into” |
| Tone | Be calm, direct and respectful | Blame, sarcasm, unnecessary apology or over-familiar language |
| Ownership | Say what support can do now | A promise that depends on another team or outcome |
| Closing | State the next step or a clear end point | Open-ended closing with no action |
Add examples from your own approved macros. A rule with one good and one bad example is easier to apply than an adjective such as “warm” or “professional”.
Mark every rule as one of these types:
- Voice: wording can normally be revised.
- Meaning: wording may reveal a policy or factual issue.
- Fixed text: wording must remain unchanged unless the named owner approves a replacement.
Watch out
Do not call every difference a tone problem
A sentence can sound wrong because it makes an unsupported promise. Send that to an owner rather than polishing it into a better-sounding promise.
3. Ask for a structured first-pass review
Give the model the rubric, the fixed-text list and one macro batch. Require a table or structured list with one record per macro. This prevents it from returning a polished but unusable block of copy.
Use this prompt, replacing the bracketed material:
You are reviewing customer support macros. Apply the voice rubric exactly.
For each macro, preserve its macro ID and title. Check that the reply still has the same operational meaning. Do not invent policy, product behaviour, eligibility, timeframes, links or compensation.
For each macro, return:
1. Macro ID and title
2. Decision: KEEP, REVISE, or OWNER REVIEW
3. Up to three specific issues, each tagged Voice, Meaning, or Fixed text
4. Revised macro text only where the decision is REVISE
5. Any phrase that is inconsistent with the library, quoted exactly
6. A short reason for OWNER REVIEW where needed
A macro is OWNER REVIEW if a revision could change a commitment, required wording, process, product claim or customer entitlement.
Voice rubric:
[PASTE RUBRIC]
Fixed text:
[PASTE FIXED TEXT]
Macros:
[PASTE BATCH]
Keep the source macro export open while you review the response. Save the unedited response as the first-pass record. It gives reviewers a traceable starting point if they question a later edit.
4. Check the draft against the source
Review every REVISE and OWNER REVIEW result. Start with macros used most often, complaint handling, account access and any macro that mentions money, service restoration or a promised action.
Check these points line by line:
- Compare the revised text with the source. Confirm that steps, conditions, links and commitments still match.
- Confirm that all required text is present and exact.
- Check that the macro still works when pasted into the support tool. Placeholders such as
[customer name],[order number]and internal notes must remain usable. - Check for invented detail. Remove any newly stated timeframe, cause, action or exception that the source did not support.
- Read the reply as a customer would. The first sentence should fit the situation, and the closing should say what happens next.
Check
The review worked when each changed macro has a clear reason
You should be able to point to a rubric rule, an approved example or an owner decision for every material wording change.
The output is wrong when it treats different scenarios as interchangeable, changes a condition such as “if eligible”, removes a required link, or upgrades uncertainty into certainty. It is also wrong when the proposed wording sounds consistent but cannot be used by an agent because it has lost a placeholder or a required action. Do not approve a macro merely because it reads more smoothly.
5. Build the inconsistency list
Create a separate approval sheet. Group phrases by the underlying issue, not by the order in which they appeared. This turns repeated edits into a decision about the whole library.
Use these columns:
| Inconsistent phrase | Where used | Proposed standard | Decision owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| “We will fix this shortly” | Billing 04, Delivery 12 | Use the approved next-step wording | Support policy owner |
| “Sorry for the inconvenience” | Multiple categories | Use only where the rubric calls for an apology | Voice owner |
Include both the quoted source phrase and the proposed standard. If two phrases are acceptable in different contexts, write the condition. Do not force one standard phrase across refunds, outages and routine status updates just to make the sheet shorter.
Note
Repeated phrases reveal maintenance work
If the same inconsistency appears across several macros, add it to the macro-writing standard after approval. Otherwise it will return in the next batch.
6. Route decisions and publish the approved set
Send the revised macros and the inconsistency sheet to the named owners. Ask them to decide each item as approve, amend, keep current, or retire macro. Record the decision beside the macro ID.
After approval, prepare a publish file containing only approved macro text. Keep a separate change log with the macro ID, previous text, approved text, reason, approver and publication status. Test a small sample in the support interface before publishing the full set.
Do not publish OWNER REVIEW items, unresolved phrase standards or macros whose required wording cannot be confirmed.
Stop
Do not overwrite the source library before approval
Keep the original export and the approved publish file separate. You need to be able to restore a macro and explain why it changed.
When the review does not work
Stop the batch if the model produces generic rewrites, misses fixed text or makes inconsistent decisions across similar macros. Tighten the rubric with approved examples, reduce the batch, and run the same macros again. If owners disagree about what “on voice” means, pause drafting and resolve the rule in the voice guide first. A clearer standard is more useful than another round of edits.
