30-day money-back guarantee on every paid tool and bundle — if it doesn't pull its weight, email support and we'll refund it.
Runs Red Team prep on a 70-80% federal proposal draft at the Shipley Phase 7 color-review gate.
Runs Red Team prep on a 70-80% federal proposal draft at the Shipley Phase 7 color-review gate. Produces four deliverables in one pass: a Consistency Report tagging mismatched personnel, dollar values, dates, team names, Section L coverage, acronym expansions, voice, and placeholders with CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW severity; a Win-Theme Audit with per-volume theme presence against the Exec Summary plus Technical plus one other volume rule; a Readability Report with FKGL, FRE, passive voice, and long-sentence ratio against federal 10-12 grade benchmarks; and an Acronym Audit catching undefined-on-first-use, defined-but-unused, inconsistent expansions, and Acronym & Glossary Auto-Builder glossary cross-checks. Use when the user says "red team consistency check", "red team prep", "consistency checker", "red team audit", "proposal red team", or "VisibleThread alternative". Prosumer VisibleThread alternative. Enforces HIGH-TRUST disclaimer, no fabrication, banned- word scan, no FOUO/CUI/classified in intake.
Ships as one download · red-team-consistency-checker.zip · 13 files
A redacted example of what this tool produces — so you can judge the quality before you buy.
Redacted, illustrative example. Names, agencies, and figures are fictional placeholders.
HIGH-TRUST DISCLAIMER
This consistency report is a draft Red Team prep based on pasted draft text. Verify findings against the source document. Proposal manager and Red Team reviewer judgment required. No FOUO/CUI/ classified content accepted in intake.
Draft analyzed: 58 pages, 4 volumes Date: 2025-08-22
| ID | Severity | Issue Type | Location | Finding | Recommended Fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-001 | CRITICAL | Placeholder | Vol III §2.2 | "[INSERT staffing chart here]" remains in body | Remove placeholder; insert chart |
| C-002 | CRITICAL | Key Personnel |
Delivery · Download
Download the zip, unzip it into your Claude skills folder, and invoke it by name. The bundled README includes a one-line verification step to confirm it loaded.
Runs on your existing Claude subscription — no extra setup.
HIGH-TRUST discipline. Where this tool produces pricing, compliance, or past-performance artifacts, FAR/DFARS guardrails and "FOR INTERNAL ESTIMATE USE — NOT A PROPOSAL PRICE" disclaimers are embedded in the output. It does not replace a qualified pricer, counsel, or color-team review.
Sign in to acquire
Runs on your Claude subscription · 30-day money-back guarantee
Paste Section L and Section M of a federal RFP.
Autonomously simulate Shipley Phase 7 color-team reviews (Pink ~30% / Red ~70% mock-SSEB / Gold ~95% exec sponsor)…
| Vol I §2.3 vs Vol III §3.1 |
| "M. Reyes — Lead Systems Engineer" in Vol I; "M. Reyes — Senior Systems Engineer" in Vol III |
| Reconcile title across volumes |
| C-003 | HIGH | Dollar Value | Vol I §3.2 vs Vol IV summary | Vol I cites "$8.4M FFP"; Vol IV summary cites "$8.7M FFP" | Reconcile to single figure |
| C-004 | HIGH | Acronym expansion | Vol I §2.1 vs Vol III §1.4 | "SOC" expanded "Security Operations Center" in Vol I; "Systems Operations Center" in Vol III | Reconcile to "Security Operations Center" |
| C-005 | HIGH | Date | Vol II PP Ref 1 vs PP Ref 3 | PP1 cites "PoP 2021-2023"; PP3 cites overlapping "2022-2025", same customer [REDACTED] | Confirm contract IDs and dates |
| C-006 | MEDIUM | Team Name | Vol I §2.1 vs Vol II §1 | "Northwind Technical Services LLC" vs "Northwind Technical" | Standardize legal name |
| C-007 | MEDIUM | Section L compliance | Vol I §2.5 | L.3.1.2.5 "shall describe risk mitigation" — Notes placeholder remains | Replace placeholder |
| C-008 | LOW | Voice consistency | Vol I throughout | Mixed "we" and "the Offeror" | Standardize to "we" |
(8 of 23 findings shown.)
Total findings: 2 CRITICAL, 3 HIGH, 11 MEDIUM, 7 LOW (23 total).
Reconcile: count of rows in the finding table equals the total printed here.
| Theme | Anchors | Exec Summ | Vol I Tech | Vol II PP | Vol III Mgmt | Min Required | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 — Proven uptime | "99.9% availability", "zero unplanned outage" | 3 | 6 | 1 | 0 | ES + Tech + 1 | PASS |
| T2 — Low-risk transition | "60-day phase-in", "no service gap" | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | ES + Tech + 1 | PASS |
| T3 — Mission-aligned staffing | "cleared bench", "named PM" | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | ES + Tech + 1 | FAIL — absent from Exec Summary |
| Theme | Source Statement (Tool #8) | In-Volume Variant | Drift | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | "99.9% availability proven on three federal contracts" | "high availability across our portfolio" (Vol II §1) | HIGH | Restore exact phrasing + metric |
| T2 | "60-day phase-in with zero service gap" | "rapid, low-risk transition" (ES) | MEDIUM | Restore metric "60-day" |
| T3 | "named PM with active clearance on day one" | (verbatim) | LOW | No change |
Calculation conventions (printed verbatim for auditability):
Federal benchmarks applied: FKGL 10-12, FRE 40-60, passive <10%, long-sentence ratio <5%.
| Metric | Value | Benchmark | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| FKGL | 13.8 | 10-12 | OVER |
| FRE | 34 | 40-60 | UNDER |
| Passive voice | 14% | <10% | OVER |
| Long-sentence ratio (>30 words) | 7% | <5% | OVER |
| Volume | FKGL | FRE | Passive | Long-Sent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vol I — Technical | 14.6 | 31 | 16% | 9% |
| Vol II — Past Performance | 12.1 | 42 | 9% | 4% |
| # | Volume / § | Words | Excerpt (20 words) | Split Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vol I §2.2 | 58 | "Our approach to maintaining continuous availability of the forecast data pipeline integrates redundant ingest nodes, automated failover, and a..." | Split at "automated failover, and" into two sentences |
| 2 | Vol I §3.1 | 47 | "The transition plan, developed in coordination with the incumbent and the contracting officer's representative, ensures that all [REDACTED]..." | Break the parenthetical into its own sentence |
| Acronym | First Use | Glossary? | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| COOP | Vol I §1.2 (used before expansion) | No | CRITICAL |
| Acronym | Defined At | Body Uses | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTA | Vol I §0 glossary | 0 | MEDIUM |
| Acronym | Expansion A | Expansion B | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOC | "Security Operations Center" (Vol I) | "Systems Operations Center" (Vol III) | CRITICAL |
| Result |
|---|
| 3 acronyms in draft body absent from the Tool #14 glossary: COOP, FFP, [REDACTED]. Add to appendix. |
Counter-reconciliation across all four parts complete. Run Tool #38 to redraft the exec summary before the Red Team gate (T3 theme presence FAIL).