Editorial Style Guide Template for AI-Assisted Content

An editorial style guide template for AI-assisted content should define the voice, reader promise, evidence rules, formatting standards, banned phrases, example policy, and editor QA checks that every draft must pass before publication. The template is not a prompt library. It is the standard for the finished page: what the writing sounds like, which claims need sources, which phrases get cut, how examples are labeled, and how an editor decides whether the page is useful enough to publish.

Copy the template below before your next AI-assisted article. Fill the bracketed fields once for a content type, then use the checklist at the end to review every draft.

How to use this template

Use one style guide for each major content type: guides, comparisons, tutorials, updates, templates, and refreshes. Do not write a new style guide for every article. The goal is to give writers and editors a shared standard, not a new bureaucracy.

For AI-assisted work, the style guide should answer seven questions before anyone drafts:

1. Who is the reader and what job are they trying to finish?
2. What should the page sound like?
3. Which claims need sources?
4. Which phrases or structures make the writing sound generic?
5. How should examples be created, labeled, and attributed?
6. What formatting makes the page easier to use?
7. What must an editor check before the page can publish?

Google's helpful-content guidance is a useful anchor: content should be helpful, reliable, and people-first. Google's AI-search guidance also points teams back to durable fundamentals instead of AI-only tricks: make useful, unique content that people can access and understand. A style guide turns those broad principles into repeatable editing rules.

Fill-in editorial style guide template

Use this as the core artifact. Replace the bracketed text with your own rules.

Section	Fill this in	Example rule for AI-assisted content
Content type	[Guide, template, comparison, refresh, tutorial, glossary, landing page]	Template/tool articles must include a copyable artifact before the halfway point of the page.
Reader	[Specific reader, role, skill level, and situation]	Write for an operator who needs a usable workflow today, not a marketer collecting buzzwords.
Reader task	[The exact job the page helps finish]	The page must help the reader build, review, or decide something concrete.
Voice	[Plain, direct, expert, skeptical, friendly, formal, etc.]	Sound like a careful editor explaining tradeoffs, not a keynote speaker.
Point of view	[What the team believes about this topic]	Useful content beats scale; AI can assist drafting but cannot replace evidence or judgment.
Evidence standard	[Which claims need links, screenshots, tests, dates, or internal data]	Any claim about search rules, product behavior, traffic, rankings, or policy needs a named source or gets removed.
Example policy	[Real, hypothetical, anonymized, or sourced examples]	Hypothetical examples must be labeled as author-invented. Never invent a real brand, customer, quote, metric, or case study.
Forbidden phrases	[Phrases, claims, clichés, hype, and vague authority signals to cut]	Cut broad landscape intros, “game-changer,” “unlock,” “leverage,” unnamed authority, and unsupported “best.”
Structure	[Required sections and order]	Open with the answer, then the template, then how to use it, then mistakes, then FAQ.
Formatting	[Headings, tables, bullets, screenshots, summaries, source notes]	Use tables for rules, bullets for checks, and short paragraphs for explanations.
Internal links	[Which pages should be protected, refreshed, or linked]	Link related source, governance, and experience pages only where they help the reader decide.
Review criteria	[What the editor checks before approval]	The editor must check first-150-word answer quality, source hygiene, generic phrasing, useful artifact value, and duplication risk.
Maintenance rule	[When to review and who owns it]	Review when source guidance changes, repeated QA failures appear, or the team's content workflow changes.

Voice and tone rules

A good style guide does not just say “sound human.” It defines what human means for the site.

Use this voice rule:

We write like a practical editor who has opened the source, checked the page's intent, and wants the reader to make a safer decision. We are direct, specific, and skeptical of unsupported claims. We do not sound like a SaaS landing page, an AI prompt, or a generic SEO article.

Then translate the rule into edits:

Instead of	Use
“In today's fast-changing landscape...”	Start with the reader's actual task.
“AI is revolutionizing content creation.”	Name the exact workflow: briefing, drafting, summarizing sources, editing, or QA.
“Experts recommend...”	Name the source or remove the authority claim.
“This powerful strategy can boost traffic.”	Say what the step fixes and avoid promising outcomes.
“Leverage AI to unlock better content.”	Say how AI assists and what a human still reviews.
“Best practices”	“Rules we use,” “checks to run,” or “standards for this content type.”

Microsoft's public writing style guidance, GOV.UK style guidance, Mailchimp's voice and tone guide, PlainLanguage.gov, and Nielsen Norman Group's tone-of-voice framework all show the same basic lesson in different ways: style is not decoration. It is a usability tool. Readers should understand what you mean, what they can do next, and how much confidence to place in the claim.

Evidence standards for AI-assisted drafts

AI-assisted writing needs explicit evidence rules because fluent prose can hide weak sourcing. Put this table in the style guide and customize it by topic.

Claim type	Evidence required	Allowed language	Blocked language
Official search guidance	Current official documentation and access date	“Google's helpful-content guidance emphasizes people-first content.”	“Google rewards this exact tactic.”
Tool, product, price, or feature claim	Current vendor page or hands-on test note	“Check the vendor page before publishing this feature claim.”	“This tool is the best option” without testing.
Original example	Label as author-invented, hypothetical, anonymized, or sourced	“Example: an author-invented style rule for a small team...”	Fake customer quotes or brand stories.
Search, traffic, ranking, or AI citation outcome	Observed data from your own analytics or named third-party source	“This removes a quality blocker; it does not guarantee traffic.”	“This will increase rankings” or “AI systems will cite this.”
Legal, medical, financial, health, addiction, safety, or compliance claim	Qualified human review plus official/expert sources	“Escalate this before publication.”	AI as the final reviewer.
Editorial judgment	No external source required, but label as the team's rule	“Our rule is to cut vague authority phrases.”	Presenting internal preference as universal fact.

This keeps the article from becoming a pile of citations. Not every sentence needs a link. But source-sensitive claims need a source trail an editor can open.

Forbidden phrase list

A forbidden phrase list is useful only when it explains the replacement. Otherwise writers replace one cliché with another.

Start with these defaults:

• Cut broad AI hype: “revolutionize,” “game-changer,” “transform your content,” “unlock growth.”
• Cut generic introductions: “in today's landscape,” “as the digital world evolves,” “content is king.”
• Cut vague authority: unnamed experts, unnamed research, or unnamed company patterns unless the source is named.
• Cut unsupported outcomes: “rank higher,” “drive more traffic,” “get cited by AI,” “guaranteed visibility.”
• Cut empty modifiers: “robust,” “seamless,” “powerful,” “comprehensive,” when they do not add meaning.
• Cut false certainty: “always,” “never,” “everyone should,” unless the source and context support it.

Replace them with concrete language:

• What changed?
• Who is affected?
• What should the reader do?
• What evidence supports the claim?
• What remains uncertain?

Example policy

AI-assisted content often fails by inventing examples that sound real. Your style guide should make example status visible.

Use these labels:

• Our own example: invented to demonstrate a workflow; not a real company, customer, or result.
• Hypothetical example: plausible scenario used for teaching; no real metrics or quotes.
• Anonymized example: based on a real case, with identifying details removed; requires internal permission.
• Sourced example: based on a public source; link the source.
• First-party example: based on your team's own test, screenshot, log, or data; record the date and method.

For this site, the default should be author-invented or sourced. Do not imply that a made-up team, brand, quote, or result is real.

Formatting and readability rules

Plain language is part of the style guide, not a late proofreading step. PlainLanguage.gov and GOV.UK both emphasize content that is easy to scan and understand; for blog teams, that becomes concrete formatting rules.

Use these defaults:

• Start with the answer before background.
• Keep paragraphs short enough to scan.
• Use tables for decision rules, templates, and comparisons.
• Use bullets for checklists, not for every thought.
• Put the useful artifact near the top when the query asks for a template.
• Use descriptive headings that match reader tasks.
• Avoid clever headings that hide the answer.
• Link sources in context, not as a dumped list only at the end.
• Add a “last reviewed” note for source-sensitive guidance.
• Include FAQ only when the page truly answers those questions in the body.

Editor QA checklist

Before publishing an AI-assisted draft, the editor should be able to answer “yes” to every item below.

Check	Pass standard
First answer	The first 150 words answer the primary query directly.
Reader task	The page helps one specific reader finish one specific job.
Useful artifact	The promised template, checklist, matrix, or workflow is present and usable.
Voice	The page sounds like the defined editorial voice, not generic AI prose.
Evidence	Source-sensitive claims have named, dated sources.
Examples	Examples are real, sourced, anonymized with permission, or clearly labeled as author-invented.
Forbidden phrases	Hype, vague authority, fake certainty, and unsupported outcome claims are removed.
Topic fit	The page stays inside the site's approved topic and does not chase unrelated keywords.
Cannibalization	The page does not duplicate an existing intent owner.
Internal links	Related pages are linked where they help the reader, not stuffed for SEO.
Metadata	Title, description, schema plan, and visible content match.
Maintenance	The page has a review owner, review trigger, and review date when needed.

If the draft fails one of these checks, revise the draft. If it fails because the topic itself is weak, duplicate, or unsourceable, block the page instead of polishing it.

Small-team example

Here is our own example for a small team publishing SEO guides with AI assistance.

Field	Example entry
Content type	SEO guide or template article
Reader	Site owner or content lead who needs a practical workflow
Voice	Direct, skeptical, specific, plain-spoken
Point of view	Durable content requires sourced answers, examples, and decisions; not AI volume
Evidence rule	Search guidance, product claims, and performance claims need a source or first-party data
Example rule	Use author-invented examples unless a real source is linked
Forbidden phrase	“AI will boost your traffic”
Replacement	“This improves source clarity; it does not guarantee rankings or traffic”
Required artifact	Template, matrix, checklist, or decision workflow
Editor stop sign	Fake examples, unsupported traffic claims, no useful artifact, or duplicate intent

This example is not a real brand's policy. It is a starting point the team can copy and adapt.

When not to add more style rules

A style guide can become a dumping ground. Do not add a new rule every time one draft annoys one editor. Add a rule when it prevents a repeated failure.

Good reasons to update the guide:

• Multiple drafts use the same vague phrases.
• Editors keep disagreeing about evidence standards.
• AI-assisted drafts keep inventing examples.
• Source-sensitive claims keep appearing without dates.
• New content types need a different structure.
• Search or platform guidance changes.

Bad reasons:

• One editor dislikes a harmless phrase.
• The rule is impossible to check.
• The rule only restates “write better.”
• The rule makes every draft slower without reducing risk.

FAQ

What is an editorial style guide template?

An editorial style guide template is a fill-in document that defines a site's voice, tone, evidence rules, example policy, formatting standards, banned phrases, and review criteria. For AI-assisted content, it should focus on the finished page and editor checks, not only on prompts.

How is this different from a brand voice guide?

A brand voice guide usually explains how the brand should sound. An editorial style guide also defines source standards, article structure, example rules, internal linking rules, metadata expectations, and QA checks. AI-assisted teams need both voice and verification standards.

Should the style guide include prompts?

It can include prompts as supporting tools, but prompts should not be the main solution. A reusable style guide should tell editors what must be true of the published page even if the draft came from a human, an AI tool, or both.

How do you make AI-assisted content sound less generic?

Define the reader task, require a point of view, ban vague authority phrases, label examples, use source-backed claims, and make every draft include a concrete artifact or decision aid. Then have an editor cut anything that sounds fluent but does not help the reader act. When the draft starts from an interview, the biggest fix is to let AI arrange the expert's cleared material rather than rewrite it; drafting from a transcript without flattening the expert's voice walks through that protocol.

Which claims need sources?

Claims about official guidance, product behavior, pricing, benefits, laws, medical or financial advice, search rankings, AI citations, traffic, revenue, or current facts need sources. Editorial preferences can be stated as internal rules, but they should not be presented as universal facts.

Claim ledger

Claim	Source	Review rule
Helpful content should be created for people and should demonstrate useful substance rather than existing mainly to manipulate search performance.	Google Search Central, “Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content”	Review within 90 days or sooner if Google guidance changes.
Google's AI-search guidance still points teams toward unique, valuable, accessible content rather than AI-only shortcuts.	Google Search Central, “AI features and your website”	Review within 90 days or sooner if Google guidance changes.
Google spam policies warn against scaled low-value content produced to manipulate search rankings.	Google Search Central spam policies	Review within 90 days or sooner if Google policies change.
Public style, tone, UX writing, and plain-language guides can inform a team's editorial rules, but each team should adapt them to its own reader task and risk level.	Microsoft Writing Style Guide, GOV.UK style guidance, Mailchimp Content Style Guide, PlainLanguage.gov, Nielsen Norman Group	Review when source pages or internal editorial workflow changes.
The template and small-team example on this page are author-invented instructional artifacts, not a real brand policy or case study.	Author-invented example for this article	Keep this label visible when reusing the example.

Sources and last-reviewed notes

Sources checked on 2026-09-04:

• Google Search Central: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content.
• Google Search Central: AI features and your website.
• Google Search Central: Spam policies for Google web search.
• Microsoft Writing Style Guide.
• GOV.UK style guidance.
• Mailchimp Content Style Guide.
• PlainLanguage.gov web content guidance.
• Nielsen Norman Group tone-of-voice dimensions.

Review this page when those source pages change, when your content workflow changes, or when editor QA shows repeated failures in voice, source handling, examples, or generic AI phrasing.