rate-name

name	rate-name
description	Rate and critique brand, company, or product names on a 1-10 scale using David Placek's (Lexicon Branding) naming methodology. Evaluates originality, processing fluency, surprise factor, sound symbolism, memorability, emotional resonance, comfort trap position, believability, compounding potential, and courage factor. Use when the user asks to rate a name, evaluate a brand name, score a name, critique a name, compare names, or says "what do you think of the name X". Supports comparison mode for multiple names.
user-invocable	true
argument-hint	[name or "name1" vs "name2"]

Input Parsing

Accept names in these formats:

• Single name: /rate-name Waveforce
• With context: /rate-name "Feather" for a fiber supplement brand competing with Metamucil
• Comparison: /rate-name "Waveforce" vs "PayWave" vs "FinStream"
• Separators: "vs", "versus", "or", "compared to"
• Multi-word names: Use quotes: /rate-name "My First Million"
• Max 5 names in comparison mode

Extract any context provided after the name(s): category, competitors, audience, product description. Context improves scoring accuracy but is not required.

---

Phase 1: Context & Name Type Detection

Context Check

If no category/context is provided, proceed anyway:

• Score all 10 dimensions
• Mark context-dependent dimensions (Originality, Comfort Trap, Believability, Courage Factor) as "estimated without category context"
• Add a note: "Score may shift +/-2 with full category context."
• Do NOT ask questions. Keep it fast. Note in the verdict if context would significantly change the evaluation.

Name Type Detection

Detect the name type and adapt the evaluation:

Type	Examples	Adaptation
Real word	Impossible, Feather, Apple	Full rubric. Assess the word's meaning in the category context.
Coined word	Swiffer, Pentium, Spotify	Processing Fluency weighs how natural the coinage feels.
Compound	BlackBerry, HubSpot, YouTube	Analyze each component separately, then the combination.
Acronym	IBM, AWS, BMW	Sound Symbolism scores letter sounds, not word phonetics. CVCV is N/A.
Single letter	X	Reduced rubric. Focus on symbolism, courage, and cultural associations.
Number-based	7-Eleven, 3M	Note as unconventional. Processing Fluency assessed differently.

---

Phase 2: Evaluate

Consult placek-scoring for the full rubric and calibration anchors Consult sound-symbolism for phonetic analysis

Score each of the 10 dimensions 0-4 using the rubric. For each score, use calibration anchors as reference points: "Is this name more or less original than SpaceX (10)? More or less than OpenAI (4)?"

Convert: raw /40 * 0.25, round to nearest integer.

Be honest. Most names score 4-6. An 8+ is genuinely excellent. A 10 is rare.

---

Phase 3: Present Results

Score Header

# Name Rating: [NAME]

## [X]/10
> "[One-line Placek-style verdict - be direct and opinionated]"
> Context confidence: [High / Medium / Linguistic-only]

The one-liner should sound like Placek: "Very unpleasant" (Grok), "Better than OpenAI" (Anthropic), "That's a 10" (SpaceX). Be blunt.

Scorecard Table

#	Dimension	Score	Note
1	Originality	?/4	[specific observation]
2	Processing Fluency	?/4
3	Surprise Factor	?/4
4	Sound Symbolism	?/4
5	Memorability	?/4
6	Emotional Resonance	?/4
7	Comfort Trap Position	?/4
8	Believability	?/4
9	Compounding Potential	?/4
10	Courage Factor	?/4
Total		??/40

Mark context-dependent dimensions with ~ if estimated without full context.

What's Working

2-3 specific strengths. Be concrete: "The double-B in BlackBerry signals reliability" not "it sounds nice."

What's Not Working

2-3 specific weaknesses. Be direct: "This is a Ready Mop name - descriptive, comfortable, invisible."

Sound Analysis

Break down the name phonetically:

• Letter-by-letter power letter check
• CVCV pattern assessment
• Speed vs weight feel
• Alliteration or internal rhyme
• Cross-language notes (if relevant)

Comfort Trap Check

Place the name on the spectrum with a visual marker:

[Bizarre] -------- [Approximate] -------- [Safe]
                        ^ HERE

One sentence on why it sits where it does.

In Context

Put the name in 3 real-world contexts to test believability:

• Headline: "[NAME] raises $50M to transform [category]"
• Product: "Imagine [NAME] on the shelf next to [competitors]"
• Ad: "The future of [category] is [NAME]"

Adapt the contexts to the product type if context was provided.

Verdict

One of three recommendations:

• Keep it - Score 8+, or 6+ with strong standout qualities. Explain what makes it work.
• Tweak it - Score 5-7 with potential. Suggest specific directions (sound adjustment, different angle on the same concept, compound variation).
• Start over - Score 4 or below, or fundamental structural problems. Explain why and suggest /namesmith for a full naming process.

---

Phase 4: Comparison Mode

If multiple names were provided:

Individual Scorecards

Run the full evaluation (Phase 2-3) for each name. Present them sequentially.

Comparison Table

After individual scorecards, present a ranked summary:

Rank	Name	Score	Strongest Dimension	Weakest Dimension
1	[Best]	?/10	[Dimension] (4/4)	[Dimension] (0/4)
2	...	?/10	...	...

Head-to-Head

Compare the top 2 contenders directly. For each dimension where they differ by 2+ points, explain why one wins.

Recommendation

Pick one. Be decisive. Explain the trade-offs but commit to a recommendation. "If I had to put one of these on a billboard tomorrow, I'd pick [NAME] because..."

---

Composition

After the evaluation, suggest next steps based on the score:

Verdict	Suggest
Start over	/namesmith for a full guided naming process
Tweak it	Specific naming directions, or /namesmith starting from Phase 5 (Treasure Hunt)
Keep it	/copywriting for supporting tagline, or /hormozi-branding for full brand identity

---

Hard Boundaries

This skill does NOT:

• Generate new names (that's /namesmith)
• Build brand identities or visual systems (that's /hormozi-branding or /design-consultation)
• Write taglines or copy (that's /copywriting)
• Check domain availability or trademarks
• Evaluate logos, colors, or visual brand elements