To review a response, choose a review method based on who is reviewing and where they prefer to work. Reviewing is how a draft becomes a submission-ready response: checking it against the requirements, strengthening the evidence, and gathering input from subject matter experts (SMEs) and approvers.
AutogenAI gives you several ways to review, depending on who is reviewing and where they prefer to work:
If you want to… |
Use |
|---|---|
Check content against set criteria (compliance, win plan, evidence) |
Gamma review, a structured AI review in the document view |
Ask a custom review question (fact-check, consistency, persuasiveness) |
The assistant in the editor (document view) |
Leave feedback or discuss a point with your team |
Comments (document view) |
Let an SME or approver read and comment without a full user license |
Assign them a reviewer license |
Review the response in Microsoft Word |
Export to Word, then use the AutogenAI Word add-in
|
Before you start
Before an SME or approver can review your work, they need access to the project. AutogenAI uses project roles and reviewer licenses to control who can see and comment on content. For what each role and license allows, see Project roles and reviewer licenses.
Add a reviewer to a project
Only an admin can add members to a project.
- Open the project, then open the three-dot (⋮) menu and select Manage members.
- Add the person and set their role to reviewer.
To assign a reviewer to a specific response, use the reviewer icon in the project outline.
If the person needs a different license first, that change goes through your organization's license manager before they can be added.
Open the review tools
Editing and reviewing happen in the document view. The review tools, including gamma review and comments, are in the right-hand navigation. You can drag the divider between the document and the panel to make the panel wider or narrower.
Review against set criteria with gamma review
Gamma review checks your content against criteria you choose and returns a list of actionable suggestions. Open it from its icon, then select which review or reviews to run.
Choose your criteria
The criteria available depend on where you are working.
In a project, two criteria sit at the top of the panel, each reviewed against your storyboard:
- Compliance: reviews against the contextual notes and evaluation criteria from your storyboard.
- Win plan: reviews against your win plan sections (win themes, differentiators, pain points) from your storyboard.
Below these sit the proposal pre-defined criteria, five checks you can run against the sections of your response:
- Approach and methodology
- Evidence
- Robustness
- Innovation
- Spelling and grammar
Use Select all (5), or choose a subset. Approach and methodology with evidence is a good combination for a more robust response.
When reviewing a standalone document in your workspace, Compliance and win plan aren't available. You can review against the proposal pre-defined criteria and a question and requirements pair: supply a specific question and the related specification section to review part of your answer against it.
Run the review and action the suggestions
Select your criteria and select Review everything. A single run checks up to 2,000 words at a time, against up to 500 words of evaluation criteria. Once the review returns suggestions, work through them one by one:
- Mark a suggestion complete (the tick icon) once you have addressed it. It moves below the un-actioned suggestions.
- Delete it (the bin icon) to remove it from view.
A compliance assessment checks your content against the requirements in the RFP documents and traces each requirement back to its source in the RFP documents.
Tip: Gamma review does not check tone of voice. To apply a consistent tone, use the tone of voice button in the write panel, or ask the research assistant with a custom prompt.
For more on gamma review, see Gamma review.
Ask a custom review question with the assistant
When you want to ask a specific review question, for example to fact-check a section, test it for persuasiveness, or check it for internal consistency, use the research assistant. There are two ways to run it:
- Select text and choose Edit with assistant to review that selection.
- Type your instruction in the assistant panel with nothing selected to review the whole document in one pass.
Select your sources (the document itself, the knowledge hub, and web search where enabled) before you run the prompt. For prompts you might use, see Review prompts to try.
The assistant's suggested changes are accepted or rejected as a whole. There is no per-item accept or reject. For a targeted change, select the specific text and run Edit with assistant on it. To undo an accepted change, use Ctrl+Z or roll back to a previous version.
Tip: If you run the same review prompts often, save them. Saved prompts can be personal to you or shared with the organization, and can be selected directly in the research assistant in the editor, so you don't have to retype a review prompt each time.
For more on the assistant, see Assistant.
Leave feedback with comments
Comments let reviewers and teammates leave feedback directly on the response, so the discussion lives alongside the content. More than one person can work in the same project at the same time.
- To comment on specific text, select it and use the inline comment button (next to edit with assistant).
- All comments appear in the comments panel.
To reply to, resolve or @mention in comments, see Comments and collaborative editing.
Review in Microsoft Word
Some reviewers prefer to work in Microsoft Word. The simplest approach is to export the response and then continue working on it in Word with the AutogenAI Word add-in. That way you keep AutogenAI's content search and review tools alongside the document, rather than marking up a plain Word file and trying to bring changes back manually.
Step 1: Export to Word
To export a single document from the document view:
- Select the export file icon in the toolbar (or press Ctrl+S with the document in focus).
- Choose Word document (.docx), name the file, and select Export. The full contents of the document are exported.
To export a whole collated project response as one file, in the project's write phase, open the three-dot (⋮) menu next to + Add section, then choose Quick export > Word document (.docx).
PDF is not an export option in the document view. PDF export is available from the homepage research screen.
Step 2: Continue in Word with the add-in
The AutogenAI Word add-in is a side panel inside Microsoft Word that brings AutogenAI into the exported document, without leaving Word. From the panel you can:
- Search your organization's knowledge hub content (past proposals, case studies, statistics, and reference material).
- Surface case studies and supporting statistics to insert into your draft.
- Run a quality review over your Word content.
For more on the add-in, see Word add-in.
Project roles and reviewer licenses
A reviewer license gives read and comment access to project content without requiring a full user license. It is the simplest way to bring SMEs and approvers into a proposal. Reviewer access is scoped to the project level: reviewers see only the projects they have been given access to.
Everyone added to a project is given one of four roles, shown in the role column of the project's team members table:
Role |
What they can do |
|---|---|
Admin |
Manage members, licenses, and projects; manage libraries and organization settings. |
Contributor |
Edit the project, contribute text, and run transformations. |
Reviewer |
View and comment. Cannot move a project through stages or edit content. |
Viewer |
View only. |
Your license type sets which roles you can hold. A user with a reviewer-only license can only be assigned as a reviewer. Users with an editor, document manager, or license manager license can hold any of the four roles, including reviewer.
For more on licenses, see AutogenAI licenses and permissions.
Review prompts to try
- "Review this section for internal consistency and flag any claims not supported by the attached documents."
- "Review this section for persuasiveness. Does it lead with a clear customer benefit and specific, credible evidence, or does it read as generic?"
- "Identify any factual claims in this section that are not substantiated by our sources, and note what evidence is missing."