| name | naming-generation |
| description | Generate names for products, features, companies, or brands with rationale and availability checks. Use whenever the user needs a name, wants naming options, asks for product naming, company naming, feature naming, or wants help finding a name with the right meaning and that's actually available. |
naming-generation
a good name does work. it suggests what the thing is, it's easy to say and spell, and it's available.
inputs
before generating:
- what's being named (product / feature / company)
- what it does (the literal function)
- who it's for (the audience whose ear it has to land in)
- what it should evoke (energy, register, archetype)
- constraints (length, language, must-avoid, must-include)
- availability requirements (domain, npm, app store, trademark, social handles)
if these aren't clear, generate broadly across categories. if they are, narrow.
the five categories
generate 20-30 candidates across these:
descriptive
literal description of what it does.
- examples: PayPal, JetBlue, General Motors
- strength: instantly clear
- weakness: hard to trademark, often unavailable, doesn't grow with the product
suggestive
implies the function without stating it.
- examples: Stripe (clean lines, financial connection), Asana (Sanskrit for posture / steadiness)
- strength: clear enough but trademark-able
- weakness: requires a tiny leap
evocative
mood, archetype, or imagery.
- examples: Patagonia, Amazon, Tesla
- strength: emotional resonance, room to grow
- weakness: requires marketing to fill in meaning
invented
coined words, often based on roots or sounds.
- examples: Kodak, Zappos, Spotify
- strength: distinctive, available, trademark-strong
- weakness: harder to remember at first, requires repetition
metaphor
borrows meaning from another domain.
- examples: Apple, Amazon, Twitter
- strength: rich associations, memorable
- weakness: associations are partly out of your control
quality checks to run on the top candidates
- pronunciation: can a stranger say it correctly on first read?
- spelling: does the user need to hear it spelled out?
- search collision: what comes up on the first page of search results today?
- domain availability: which extensions are open (.com, .io, .co, etc.)
- npm / app store availability: if relevant to the product
- trademark search: is anything obviously conflicting in the same class
- international: does it mean something embarrassing or unintended in a major market language
- negative associations: what would a cynical reader assume
output
candidate
category: [descriptive / suggestive / evocative / invented / metaphor]
meaning: [what it suggests and why]
pronunciation: [easy / requires care]
spelling: [easy / requires explanation]
search collision: [clear / contested / blocked]
domain status: [extensions found available]
npm status: [taken / available]
trademark concerns: [list or "none found"]
vibe: [one line on how it feels]
[20-30 candidates]
top three recommendations
1. [name] — [why]
2. [name] — [why]
3. [name] — [why]
one anti-recommendation
[name] — [why this sounds good but has a fatal flaw]
what to avoid
- names that are very close to an established brand in your category
- names that depend on a particular spelling people won't reproduce
- names with apostrophes or special characters
- names that work only in english if the audience is global
- names you have to explain
