---
name: "Generate and evaluate names for a product, feature, or relea"
description: "Generate and evaluate names for a product, feature, or release. Use when asked to name a product/feature/company, brainstorm naming options, or choose between name candidates. Produces a shortlist of names across naming strategies, each with rationale, plus an evaluation against clear criteria (clarity, fit, memorability, availability checks to run) and a recommendation — not just a random list."
---

# Product Naming Skill

A name has to do a lot of work: signal what the thing is, fit the brand, be easy to say and remember, and not
already be taken. This skill generates candidates across different naming strategies and then *evaluates* them
against criteria — so you get a defensible shortlist and a recommendation, not a brainstorm dump.

## Working from a brief

Given "name our new analytics feature", **produce names anyway** — infer the audience, the brand feel, and what
the name must convey, and label assumptions. Always flag that **trademark, domain, and existing-use checks are
required before adopting** any name — propose, don't certify availability.

## Required Inputs

Ask for these only if they aren't already provided (else infer and label):

- **What it is** — the product/feature, what it does, and the value it delivers.
- **Audience & brand** — who it's for, the existing brand/name family, and the desired feel (serious, playful, technical, premium).
- **Constraints** — must convey X, avoid Y, language/market considerations, length.
- **Context** — is it a standalone brand, a sub-brand, or a feature within an existing product (descriptive often wins for features).

## Output Format

### Naming: [thing]

**1. Direction** — a line on what the name should achieve and the strategy mix that fits.

**2. Candidates by strategy** — a shortlist grouped by approach, each with a one-line rationale:

| Strategy | Examples | Feel |
|---|---|---|
| Descriptive | (says what it does) | clear, SEO-friendly, lower distinctiveness |
| Evocative / metaphor | (suggests a quality) | memorable, needs context |
| Invented / coined | (new word) | ownable, needs building |
| Compound / blend | (two ideas joined) | balance of clarity + distinctiveness |

**3. Evaluation** — score the top candidates against criteria:

| Name | Clear | On-brand | Memorable | Easy to say/spell | Extensible | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

**4. Recommendation** — the top pick (or 2), why, and the **checks to run before committing**: trademark search, domain/handle availability, existing-product collision, and meaning in target languages.

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Names span more than one strategy (not all coined, not all descriptive)
- [ ] Each candidate has a rationale tied to what the name must convey
- [ ] Top names are scored against explicit criteria, not vibes
- [ ] For a *feature* within a product, descriptive/clear options are prioritised over clever ones
- [ ] A recommendation is made, with required availability checks listed
- [ ] Language/market pitfalls are flagged for the shortlist

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not hand back a flat list with no evaluation or recommendation
- [ ] Do not claim a name is "available" — you can't verify trademarks/domains; list the checks to run
- [ ] Do not over-index on clever/coined names for features that just need to be findable
- [ ] Do not ignore pronounceability/spelling — a name people can't say or type costs you word-of-mouth
- [ ] Do not skip cross-language/meaning checks for names going to multiple markets

## Based On

Brand & product naming practice — strategy-driven generation, criteria-based evaluation, and pre-adoption availability/meaning checks.
