A client needs to name a product, feature, company, or initiative and wants a structured creative process rather than a brainstorm-and-hope approach. Works for new product launches, feature naming, rebrands, and internal initiative naming where the name needs to stick.
How it works
- You provide what is being named, the positioning, target audience, and any naming constraints (must-haves, off-limits words, domain requirements)
- The skill runs a structured naming process: defining criteria, generating candidates across three creative modes, screening for linguistic issues, checking availability frameworks, and building a stakeholder scoring rubric
- It returns a shortlist of vetted name candidates with scores, rationale, and a recommended path to final selection
Prompt
You are facilitating a naming workshop for a Kate Makrigiannis consulting engagement. Kate helps clients move from endless name debates to a disciplined selection process that produces names worth owning. Before writing, read knowledge/voice-tone-guide.md -- use the client-facing voice.
Inputs I will provide:
- What is being named: {{NAMING_SUBJECT}} (product, feature, company, initiative, category -- and a brief description of what it does)
- Positioning: {{POSITIONING}} (how this thing is positioned in the market -- who it is for, what it does differently, what category it plays in)
- Target audience: {{TARGET_AUDIENCE}} (who will say, search for, and remember this name)
- Naming constraints: {{CONSTRAINTS}} (must-haves, off-limits terms, domain extension requirements, character limits, language considerations, trademark classes -- or "no constraints")
- Context (optional): {{CONTEXT}} (why this naming work is happening now -- launch, rebrand, pivot, legal conflict)
Step 1: Define naming criteria
Build a naming criteria matrix. These criteria will be used to evaluate every candidate.
| Criterion | Weight (1-5) | Definition | How to Evaluate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Memorability | [weight] | Easy to recall after hearing once | Say it aloud, wait an hour, try to recall |
| Pronounceability | [weight] | Easy to say correctly on first attempt | Test across native and non-native English speakers |
| Meaning / association | [weight] | Evokes the right conceptual territory | What images, feelings, or ideas does it trigger? |
| Emotional resonance | [weight] | Creates the right feeling for the brand | Does it feel premium, playful, technical, approachable? |
| Scalability | [weight] | Works as the product/company grows | Will it still fit if we expand to adjacent markets? |
| Distinctiveness | [weight] | Stands apart from competitors and category norms | Is it differentiated in search results and conversation? |
| Brevity | [weight] | Short enough for practical use | Character count, syllable count, URL friendliness |
| Visual / typographic appeal | [weight] | Looks good written down | How does it appear in a logo, headline, URL? |
Adjust weights based on the specific naming context. For consumer products, memorability and emotional resonance may outweigh scalability. For enterprise tools, clarity and pronounceability may matter more.
State your weight rationale: "I've weighted [criterion] highest because [reason based on positioning and audience]."
Step 2: Generate name candidates
Produce 8-12 candidates across three creative modes:
Mode 1: Descriptive Names (3-4 candidates)
Names that describe what the thing does or is. Clear and functional.
- For each: name, meaning, and one-sentence rationale
Mode 2: Invented Names (3-4 candidates)
Coined words, portmanteaus, or linguistic constructions that don't exist yet. Ownable and distinctive.
- For each: name, construction logic (what roots, sounds, or associations it draws from), and one-sentence rationale
Mode 3: Metaphorical Names (3-4 candidates)
Names borrowed from other domains (nature, mythology, geography, science, culture) that carry the right associations.
- For each: name, source domain and association, and one-sentence rationale
For each candidate, note syllable count and character count.
Step 3: Linguistic screening
Screen every candidate for potential issues:
| Name | Negative Associations | Cultural Sensitivity | Pronunciation Issues | Spelling Ambiguity | Overall Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Name] | [Any unintended meanings, slang, or unfortunate readings] | [Issues in major non-English languages or cultures] | [Will people say it wrong?] | [Will people spell it wrong?] | Low / Medium / High |
Flag any candidate with Medium or High risk: " has linguistic risk -- [specific issue]. Test with native speakers before proceeding.]`
Remove any candidate with a disqualifying issue (slur, offensive meaning in a major language, unpronounceable).
Step 4: Availability check framework
Provide an availability assessment framework (the client or their legal team completes the actual checks):
Domain Availability
For each surviving candidate:
| Name | .com | .io | .co | [Other relevant TLDs] | Exact match available? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Name] | [Check] | [Check] | [Check] | [Check] | [Y/N/Unknown] |
.com" or "[name]app.com" if exact match is taken.]`
Trademark Screening
For each surviving candidate:
| Name | USPTO TESS Search | Relevant Classes | Potential Conflicts | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Name] | [Search needed] | [Classes relevant to the product] | [Known similar marks] | Low / Medium / High |
Social Handle Availability
For each surviving candidate, note whether handles are available on the platforms that matter for the target audience.
Step 5: Stakeholder scoring rubric
Create a scoring sheet the client's team can use to evaluate finalists:
Scoring Sheet
Instructions: Rate each finalist name on a 1-5 scale for each criterion. Multiply by the criterion weight. Sum for a total score.
| Criterion | Weight | [Name 1] | [Name 2] | [Name 3] | [Name 4] | [Name 5] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Memorability | [W] | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = |
| Pronounceability | [W] | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = |
| Meaning | [W] | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = |
| Emotional resonance | [W] | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = |
| Scalability | [W] | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = |
| Distinctiveness | [W] | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = |
| Brevity | [W] | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = |
| Visual appeal | [W] | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = | ___ x W = |
| Total | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ | ___ |
Recommended Selection Process
- Each stakeholder scores independently (no group discussion first)
- Compile scores and identify the top 3 by average score
- Discuss only the top 3 -- the scoring narrows the field so the debate is productive
- Final decision-maker picks from the top 3 (naming by committee produces mediocre names)
Step 6: Recommendation
Based on the criteria analysis, linguistic screening, and availability framework, provide:
- Top recommendation: [Name] -- 2-3 sentences on why this is the strongest candidate
- Strong alternative: [Name] -- why this is a solid backup
- Bold choice: [Name] -- the riskiest but most distinctive option, for clients willing to be different
Related skills: Pairs with
/brand-messaging-frameworkfor building messaging around the chosen name. Uses/positioning-workshop-prepfor upstream positioning inputs.
Example Output
Input
- What is being named: A new SaaS product from Thornfield Analytics that monitors third-party vendor contracts in real time, flagging risk clauses, auto-surfacing renewal deadlines, and tracking compliance obligations across a company's entire supplier portfolio
- Positioning: Positioned as the intelligent contract nerve center for procurement and legal ops teams — not a contract repository (they have those), but an active risk monitoring layer that sits on top of existing systems and tells you what's about to go wrong before it does
- Target audience: VP-level procurement leaders, general counsel, and legal ops directors at mid-market and enterprise companies (500–10,000 employees) who manage 50–500 active vendor contracts and are drowning in spreadsheet-based tracking
- Naming constraints: Must work as a .com or .io domain; no use of the words "contract," "legal," or "compliance" (too generic, already owned by competitors); prefer 1–2 syllables or a clean two-word compound; must be trademarkable in USPTO Class 42 (SaaS); no acronyms
- Context: First-time product launch; Thornfield is spinning the product out as a standalone brand separate from their consulting practice, so the name needs to carry independently without the Thornfield parent
Output (abbreviated)
Naming Workshop: Thornfield Analytics Vendor Risk Monitor
Step 1: Naming Criteria Matrix
| Criterion | Weight (1–5) | Definition | How to Evaluate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Memorability | 5 | Easy to recall after one hearing | Say it in a meeting, test recall the next day |
| Pronounceability | 5 | Correct on first attempt by non-native speakers | Test with 5 people across backgrounds |
| Meaning / association | 4 | Evokes watchfulness, risk intelligence, clarity | What images surface immediately? |
| Distinctiveness | 4 | Stands apart from Ironclad, Coupa, Icertis, Conga | Searchable, not a sea of similar-sounding tools |
| Scalability | 4 | Works beyond vendor contracts if product expands | Would it hold if they added employee or partner risk? |
| Emotional resonance | 3 | Feels sharp and authoritative, not bureaucratic | Does it feel like something a GC would trust? |
| Brevity | 3 | URL-friendly, fits in a nav bar | Under 10 characters preferred |
| Visual / typographic appeal | 2 | Renders cleanly in a wordmark | Avoids awkward letter combinations |
Weight rationale: Memorability and pronounceability are weighted highest because this name will travel entirely by word-of-mouth in enterprise buying cycles — a GC recommending it to a CFO in a budget meeting needs to say it once and have it land. Distinctiveness is weighted 4 because the category is cluttered with forgettable portmanteaus (Coupa, Conga, Icertis all blur together). Emotional resonance is weighted lower than usual because enterprise buyers prioritize trust over delight — the name needs gravitas, not warmth.
Step 2: Name Candidates
Mode 1: Descriptive Names
Vigil (2 syllables, 5 characters) A vigil is an act of watchful attention — kept through the night, through risk. Clear directional meaning without using any restricted terms. Rationale: Instantly communicates monitoring and alertness; works as both noun and verb ("run Vigil on your contracts"); short enough to own.
Wardline (2 syllables, 8 characters) From "ward" (to guard) + "line" (threshold or boundary). Suggests an active defensive perimeter around supplier exposure. Rationale: Evokes the line between safe and exposed; feels defensible and purposeful for a risk audience.
Clausewatch (2 syllables, 10 characters) Compound of clause + watch. Describes exactly what the product does at the feature level. Rationale: High clarity for SEO and category discovery; risk is that it may feel too literal to scale beyond contract monitoring.
Sentro (2 syllables, 6 characters) A simplified form of "sentry" — the guard at the post. Slight invented quality while retaining clear meaning. Rationale: Cleaner visually than "Sentry" (already taken in the dev-tools space); feels like a proper product name, not a generic noun.
Mode 2: Invented Names
Vexra (2 syllables, 5 characters) Constructed from vex (to trouble, to complicate) + -ra (a sharpening suffix common in tech naming, as in Okta, Zuora). The name implies the product deals with vexing complexity. Rationale: Highly ownable, clean typographically, feels like a standalone brand; the vex root subtly nods to the problem without stating it.
Clarik (2 syllables, 6 characters) From clarity + -ik (a compact, technical-feeling suffix). Suggests bringing clarity to opaque contract risk. Rationale: Sounds like a professional tool; the clarity root is directionally correct for buyers who feel buried in contract noise.
Orvex (2 syllables, 5 characters) Constructed from orb (complete view, whole-picture awareness) + vex/vertex (point of intersection). Suggests a single point of total visibility. Rationale: Feels distinctive and tech-forward; slightly abstract, which supports scalability if the product expands beyond vendor contracts.
Mode 3: Metaphorical Names
Meridian (4 syllables, 8 characters) From navigation — the meridian is the reference line from which all positions are calculated. Suggests the product is the fixed point of truth for contract status. Rationale: Premium, authoritative register; legal and procurement audiences have enough exposure to navigation metaphors to find it resonant. Risk: 4 syllables is long; often shortened to "the Meridian dashboard."
Rampart (2 syllables, 7 characters) A rampart is a defensive wall — built to hold a perimeter and absorb incoming risk. Strong, structural, unapologetically defensive. Rationale: Emotionally resonant for a GC audience; conveys that the product is infrastructure, not an accessory. Slightly aggressive — test with buyers.
Cairn (1 syllable, 5 characters) A cairn is a stack of stones used as a waypoint marker — a guide built to prevent you from getting lost. Borrowed from wilderness navigation. Rationale: Memorable and completely distinctive in the space; the single syllable is a significant advantage. Risk: requires a small amount of cultural explanation; not immediately self-evident.
Step 3: Linguistic Screening
| Name | Negative Associations | Cultural Sensitivity | Pronunciation Issues | Spelling Ambiguity | Overall Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vigil | Minor: "death vigil" association exists | Low | None — universally clear | None | Low |
| Wardline | None identified | Low | None | None | Low |
| Clausewatch | None | Low | None | "clause" vs. "claws" in speech | Low–Medium |
| Sentro | None | Low — check Spanish (centro = center, neutral) | None | May be written "Sentry" by mistake | Low |
| Vexra | "Vex" carries a mild frustration/annoyance meaning | Low | None | None | Low |
| Clarik | None | Low | None | "Clariq"? Unlikely | Low |
| Orvex | None | Low | OR-vex vs. or-VEX — stress ambiguity | None | Low–Medium |
| Meridian | None | Low | None — four syllables is the only friction | None | Low |
| Rampart | Slightly aggressive/military; some buyers may read as combative | Low | None | None | Medium |
| Cairn | None | Low | KAIRN — non-obvious to non-hikers | "Carne"? Unlikely | Low–Medium |
Rampart carries medium risk — the military fortification framing may read as adversarial to the vendor relationships procurement teams are actively managing. Test with 3–5 VP Procurement buyers before advancing to finals.
Cairn has mild pronunciation risk with non-