Brand Naming — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited Brand Naming (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Naming is a strategic decision with long-term consequences. A name shapes perception, affects trademark viability, influences SEO, and is one of the hardest things to change once established. This skill approaches it with the rigor it deserves.
Before generating names, define the criteria against which every candidate will be scored. Standard criteria: Distinctive (stands out in the category), Memorable (easy to recall after one exposure), Pronounceable (works in the primary target language without coaching), Meaningful (suggests something relevant without over-explaining), Available (trademark and domain likely obtainable), Scalable (works as the company/product evolves). Weight the criteria by project priority — a startup needs availability weighted highest; an established brand extension might weight distinctiveness first.
Explore at least five archetypes to avoid fixating on one direction: Descriptive (names that describe the function: 'Zoom', 'Slack'), Invented (coined words with no prior meaning: 'Kodak', 'Xero'), Evocative (words that suggest a feeling or idea: 'Amazon', 'Stripe'), People names (founder or character: 'Dyson', 'Patagonia'), Alphanumeric (a combination of letters/numbers: 'G2', 'M1'). Generate at least 20 candidates before evaluating any. Premature evaluation kills creative range.
After generating candidates, score each one against the established criteria on a simple 1-3 scale per criterion. Do not average into a single score — the breakdown matters. A name that scores 3/3/3/3/1/3 (low on availability) is a different decision than 2/2/2/2/3/2 (mediocre across the board). Surface the top 5 candidates with their score breakdowns and short rationale for each criterion.
For any name entering serious consideration, run it through: unintended meanings in the top 3 secondary language markets, phonetic associations (what does it sound like?), visual ambiguity (how does it look in all-caps, all-lowercase?), and a basic Google search for existing uses. Do not substitute this for professional trademark search — clearly state that trademark clearance by a legal professional is required before finalizing any name.
Speak each candidate aloud three times. Say it in a sentence as if introducing the brand: 'Have you heard of [Name]?' and 'I work at [Name].' Names that feel awkward in natural speech rarely recover. Test recall: tell someone the shortlist verbally, wait 10 minutes, and ask them to repeat the names they remember. The ones that survive recall testing are the ones worth investing in.
Present final candidates in context, not in isolation. Show the name in a sentence, in a URL format, as a social handle, and in a simple logotype lockup (even set in a neutral typeface). Context reveals problems that a name in a list hides. A name that looks strong on a spreadsheet may look odd as a URL or feel weak at display size.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.