Collaboration

Draft, review, and sign off — all in one place

Stop emailing screenshots and chasing “looks good?” in Slack. Posts move through draft, review, and approval inside Kadenzo, with comments pinned to the post and a sign-off the tool enforces — so nothing publishes until the right person says yes.

Start your 7-day trial

How it works

Four steps from idea to live — and the last one runs without you.

Step 1

A drafter writes the post

Whoever owns the content composes the post and attaches the media, then sends it for review with one click. It lands in the right person's queue instead of a Slack DM that scrolls away.

Draft ready

Caption written

Media attached

Sent for review

Step 2

Reviewers comment in context

The approver opens the post exactly as it'll publish and leaves notes pinned to it — not in a forwarded thread. “Tighten the hook, swap the second image” sits right on the work, so nothing gets lost in translation.

In review

✎Tighten the opening line

♢Swap the second image

→Sent back for edits

Step 3

The drafter revises and resubmits

Edits happen on the same post, and it goes back up for review in a click. The comment history stays attached, so the approver can see exactly what changed instead of re-reading everything.

Revision 2

Hook reworked

Image replaced

Awaiting sign-off

Step 4

Approval unlocks publishing

Once an approver signs off, the post is cleared to go out at its scheduled time. Until then it simply won't publish — the sign-off is the gate, not a polite hope that someone checked.

Approved · scheduled

Tue 9:00 AM

Approved by Mara

Wed 12:00 PM

Approved by Mara

Fri 3:00 PM

Awaiting sign-off

What you get

A real approval gate

Posts marked for review can't publish until someone signs off. The sign-off is enforced by the tool, not left to a verbal “yeah, ship it” nobody can find later.

Reviewers see only what's theirs

Invite an approver by email and scope them to one client or to everything. The boundary is enforced in the database, so a client's reviewer can't reach another client's posts even by editing the address bar.

Comments on the actual post

Feedback lives pinned to the post it's about — not buried in an email thread or a Slack channel. The note and the work are never more than a glance apart.

Review the real preview

Approvers see the post the way it'll publish on each network, so sign-off is on the finished thing — not a pasted blob of text in a chat window.

One queue per reviewer

Everything waiting on a person sits in their review queue. No more wondering which DM, which doc, or which thread the latest draft is hiding in.

The sign-off is on the post

Who approved it and when is recorded against the post itself, and the previous round's notes travel with it when a draft comes back for a second look — so “who cleared this?” has an answer that isn't an inbox search.

Kadenzo vs Email & Slack approvals

Email & Slack approvals

Comments pinned to the post

Lost in threads

Enforced sign-off before publishing

Reviewer sees the real preview

Screenshots

Reviewers scoped per client

One queue of what's waiting on you

Who approved it, recorded on the post

Edits stay on one version

Versions drift

The thinking

Approval over email and Slack is where posts go to rot

The default approval workflow is a mess of screenshots. The drafter pastes the caption into Slack with a JPEG of how it might look and writes “good to go?” An hour later someone replies “can we change the second line.” Multiply that by a dozen posts a week across a few clients and chasing approvals is a part-time job.

“Looks good” in a Slack thread is not an approval. It's a screenshot you can't find next week.

The problems compound. Feedback is detached from the work, so “the second one” is ambiguous. Versions drift. And there's no gate: “looks good” in a chat doesn't stop a half-approved post from going live, and it's impossible to prove later who signed off.

Kadenzo collapses that loop into one place. The draft, the preview, the comments, and the sign-off all live on the same post — so review happens on the thing that will publish, and nothing goes out until an approver clears it.

Signed off

Approvals inbox2 pending

Alice (Reviewer)

Posts waiting on you

3 total · sorted by urgency

Q2 launch announcement

New product line launching Monday. Tagging legal for the comp claim wording.

Acmein 2h

Awaiting review

Webinar reminder · Tuesday 2pm

Last chance to register for the Tuesday session. CTA goes to the lp.

BetaMon 9am

Approved

Pricing update post

Post explaining the new tier structure. Needs a softer hook than the draft.

Acmepast · fix copy

Rejected

Your decision · Q2 launch announcement

Approving lets it publish at the scheduled time — no email thread needed.

Approve & schedule

Reject

Avg sign-off · 38mPer-client scope enforced

Who it's for

Run client sign-off without the chase

Send a week of drafts for client review and let approvals come back in one queue, each comment pinned to the post — instead of a dozen forwarded emails and “per my last message.”

Agencies

Let juniors draft safely

Let newer team members and freelancers write freely, and mark their posts for review so a senior clears them — nothing reaches a real feed unvetted.

In-house teams

Keep stakeholders in the loop, not in the way

Route posts past the people who need to bless a campaign, with one clear place to comment and approve — so reviews speed launches up instead of stalling them.

Marketers

Frequently asked

How does the approval gate actually work?

A post sent for review can't publish until an approver signs off on it. If its scheduled time arrives before approval, it waits rather than going out. The sign-off is enforced by the tool, so a half-reviewed post can't slip into a feed.

Can I control who's allowed to publish?

Yes — by marking posts for review. Anyone working in the account can write and submit, and a post marked for review can't publish until an invited approver signs off. Approvers are invited by email and can be scoped to a single client, so a reviewer only ever sees the work that's theirs.

Where do reviewers leave feedback?

Directly on the post, pinned to the work itself, so notes stay attached to what they're about. The drafter sees the comments in context, makes the edits on the same post, and resubmits — no forwarded threads or detached screenshots.

Do approvers see what the post will really look like?

Yes — reviewers see the post as it'll publish on each network, not a pasted block of text. That means sign-off happens on the finished thing, including the media and per-network versions, so there are no surprises after it goes out.

Is there a record of who approved what?

The approval is recorded on the post — who signed it off and when — and the comment thread stays with it, including the previous round's notes when a draft comes back for a second look. When a client asks who cleared something, the answer is on the post instead of scattered across inboxes and chat logs.

Can clients approve without full access to my account?

Yes — an approver isn't a full account. They're invited by email and land in a review view that shows the posts waiting on them and nothing else: no composer, no settings, no other clients' work. Scope them to a single client and that boundary is enforced in the database, not just hidden in the interface.