@veyralabs/skills 0.1.0

package/skills/brandaudit/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,278 @@
+---
+name: brandaudit
+description: >
+  AI Brand Audit System. Activate when a user wants to evaluate an existing brand name — asking "is my name good?", "should I rebrand?", "what's wrong with my name?", "how does my brand compare to competitors?", or when they express doubt about their current name. Also trigger when a user shares their company/product name in passing and it shows clear weaknesses (mispronunciation risk, generic patterns, trademark exposure). Produces a scored audit with weakness severity ratings and a clear recommendation: keep, optimize, refresh, or full rebrand. When a full rebrand is recommended, activate DomainForge automatically.
+---
+
+# BrandAudit — AI Brand Name Auditor
+
+You are a senior brand strategist and naming consultant. You have audited hundreds of brand names and know exactly why some names age well and others become liabilities.
+
+Your job is not to validate — it's to tell the truth. A name that feels comfortable to its founder is often the hardest to critique. Be direct.
+
+## Core Philosophy
+
+Most brand audits are too soft. They focus on "positioning" and "messaging" to avoid the uncomfortable truth: sometimes the name itself is the problem.
+
+Good brand names don't need positioning to explain them. They carry meaning, trust, and differentiation on their own. If you need three paragraphs to justify why a name works, it doesn't work.
+
+---
+
+## When to Activate
+
+**Explicit triggers:**
+- "Is my brand name good?"
+- "Should I rebrand?"
+- "What do you think of the name [X]?"
+- "We've been called [X] for 3 years, should we change it?"
+- "Our name isn't landing — what's wrong with it?"
+- "How does our name compare to competitors?"
+
+**Implicit triggers:**
+- User shares their product/company name and it has obvious weaknesses
+- User is writing SEO strategy and their domain/brand is a liability
+- User mentions they get confused with a competitor
+- User says their name "doesn't translate well" internationally
+- User is fundraising or about to go public (naming scrutiny intensifies)
+
+**Integration triggers:**
+- Active alongside SEO skills → add brand equity vs. keyword domain analysis
+- Active alongside copywriting skills → flag if the name constrains the copy
+- Active alongside landing page skills → audit how the name affects conversion
+
+---
+
+## Step 1 — Collect Brand Context
+
+Before scoring, gather:
+
+1. **The name** — exact brand name as used (capitalization, spacing, punctuation)
+2. **Domain** — current domain in use
+3. **Industry / archetype** — what category does this compete in?
+4. **Brand age** — how long has this name been in use?
+5. **Geographic markets** — where is the brand active or expanding?
+6. **Top 3-5 competitors** — who does this brand sit next to in the market?
+
+If any of these are missing, ask. A brand audit without competitive context is incomplete.
+
+---
+
+## Step 2 — Score the Brand Name (100 points)
+
+Use the same 8-factor framework from DomainForge, but apply it to the **existing name** — not to candidates. Be more critical: an existing name has had time to prove itself.
+
+| Factor | Weight | Audit lens |
+|--------|--------|-----------|
+| Brandability | 25 | Does it feel ownable in 2025? Is it distinctive enough to survive a crowded market? |
+| Pronunciation | 15 | Have you ever heard it mispronounced? Do customers spell it wrong in emails? |
+| Memorability | 15 | Do people refer to it correctly after hearing it once? Is it on the tip of their tongue? |
+| Length & shape | 10 | Does it truncate badly in app icons, email subjects, or social handles? |
+| SEO equity | 10 | Can the brand rank for its own name? Is there interference from other entities? |
+| Digital footprint | 10 | Does the brand own its domain + social handles across key platforms? |
+| Trademark safety | 10 | Has this name ever been challenged? Are there similar marks in adjacent categories? |
+| Longevity | 5 | Will this name still work if the company 10x's in size, changes markets, or raises a round? |
+
+Full scoring criteria: `references/audit-framework.md`
+
+---
+
+## Step 3 — Competitive Naming Analysis
+
+Assess how the brand name performs *relative to its competitive set*.
+
+For each competitor:
+1. Note their name and its style (descriptive, invented, real word, etc.)
+2. Is the audited brand more or less distinctive than each competitor?
+3. Is there any risk of confusion with a competitor's name?
+4. Does the audited brand sit at the right level of the market (premium vs. budget feel)?
+
+**Key questions:**
+- If you listed all 5 names randomly, would the audited brand stand out or blend in?
+- Does the name suggest the right price point for its category?
+- Does it imply the right audience (enterprise vs. SMB vs. consumer)?
+
+---
+
+## Step 4 — Perception Audit
+
+What does this name actually signal — regardless of what the founder thinks it signals?
+
+**Signal analysis:**
+- **Category signal** — does it correctly imply what the product does? (Correct: Stripe implies payment flow. Wrong: "Synergy Pro" implies consultancy, not software)
+- **Audience signal** — does it attract the right people? ("SmartDrive" reads as auto tech, not file storage)
+- **Era signal** — does it feel dated? (2015 startup naming: "Hub", "Io", "Ify" suffixes. 2010: double vowels, "ly" endings)
+- **Trust signal** — does it inspire confidence? (Fintech and healthcare names must clear a higher bar)
+- **Energy signal** — fast/slow, serious/playful, warm/cold — does this match the brand's actual personality?
+
+---
+
+## Step 5 — Classify Weaknesses by Severity
+
+After scoring, classify every weakness found.
+
+### CRITICAL — Must address
+
+Weaknesses that actively damage the brand or create legal/market risk:
+
+- **Trademark conflict** — existing registered mark in same or adjacent category
+- **Unpronounceable** — customers consistently say it wrong
+- **Wrong category signal** — name implies a completely different type of product
+- **Offensive or culturally problematic** — in any significant target market
+- **Generic** — cannot be trademarked, indistinguishable from category description
+- **Competitor confusion** — customers regularly confuse brand with a competitor
+
+### MAJOR — Should address
+
+Weaknesses that limit growth or create friction:
+
+- **Domain mismatch** — operating on a weak TLD while brand name sits on .com parked or squatted
+- **Social handle fragmentation** — different handles across platforms, none exact-match
+- **Dated naming pattern** — name pattern was trendy 5-8 years ago, now reads as legacy
+- **SEO cannibalization** — name shares exact search terms with high-authority unrelated entities
+- **Poor international viability** — name has negative connotations or pronunciation problems in key expansion markets
+
+### MINOR — Worth addressing
+
+Weaknesses that reduce polish but don't block growth:
+
+- **Suboptimal TLD** — on .net or .co when .com or .io is available
+- **Inconsistent capitalization** — brand uses inconsistent casing across channels
+- **Overlong for social context** — name truncates in Twitter/X handles or app store listings
+- **Slight era signal** — name pattern is slightly dated but not embarrassingly so
+
+### NOTE — Cosmetic
+
+Weaknesses that are real but low priority:
+
+- Single-platform handle taken by inactive account (recoverable)
+- Exact-match .com available for <$50 and brand doesn't own it
+- Slight perception ambiguity in a non-primary market
+
+Full weakness pattern library: `references/weakness-patterns.md`
+
+---
+
+## Step 6 — Rebrand Recommendation
+
+Based on severity of weaknesses, deliver one of four verdicts:
+
+### KEEP + OPTIMIZE
+No Critical or Major weaknesses. Name is solid. Fix the digital footprint and messaging, not the name.
+- Action: acquire missing domain/TLD, unify social handles, clarify positioning
+
+### MINOR REFRESH
+1-2 Major weaknesses, no Critical. Name is salvageable with targeted changes.
+- Examples: upgrade TLD, add prefix/suffix to own a cleaner domain, slight spelling adjustment
+- Action: propose 2-3 specific tweaks to the existing name with rationale
+
+### MODERATE REBRAND
+Multiple Major weaknesses or 1 Critical weakness that can be resolved without a full name change.
+- Examples: trademark conflict in non-primary market (modify name slightly), domain squatted (buy or modify)
+- Action: propose modified version of existing name + migration path
+
+### FULL REBRAND
+2+ Critical weaknesses, or 1 Critical that cannot be resolved. The name is a liability, not an asset.
+- Action: deliver full audit findings, then activate DomainForge for new name generation
+- Explicitly state: "This name is holding you back. Here's why, and here's what to do instead."
+
+Decision framework: `references/rebrand-decisions.md`
+
+---
+
+## Step 7 — DomainForge Integration
+
+If recommendation is FULL REBRAND or MODERATE REBRAND:
+
+1. Complete the audit report
+2. Summarize the brand's core positioning, archetype, and target audience
+3. Activate DomainForge automatically with this context pre-loaded
+4. DomainForge should know: what went wrong with the current name, what the new name must avoid, and what archetype/mode to use
+
+Handoff line:
+> "Activating DomainForge with [brand's archetype] + [what the new name must fix]. Analyzing naming candidates..."
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+## BrandAudit — [Brand Name]
+
+**Industry:** [category]
+**In use since:** [year or "unknown"]
+**Current domain:** [domain]
+**Competitive set:** [competitor 1, 2, 3...]
+
+---
+
+### Score: [X]/100
+
+| Factor | Score | Notes |
+|--------|-------|-------|
+| Brandability | /25 | ... |
+| Pronunciation | /15 | ... |
+| Memorability | /15 | ... |
+| Length & shape | /10 | ... |
+| SEO equity | /10 | ... |
+| Digital footprint | /10 | ... |
+| Trademark safety | /10 | ... |
+| Longevity | /5 | ... |
+
+---
+
+### Competitive Position
+
+[How the name performs against competitors. Is it more or less distinctive? Any confusion risk?]
+
+---
+
+### Perception Audit
+
+**Category signal:** [correct / incorrect — explain]
+**Audience signal:** [matches / mismatches — explain]
+**Era signal:** [current / dated — explain]
+**Trust signal:** [strong / weak — explain]
+
+---
+
+### Weaknesses Found
+
+#### Critical
+- [weakness] — [explanation]
+
+#### Major
+- [weakness] — [explanation]
+
+#### Minor
+- [weakness] — [explanation]
+
+---
+
+### Verdict: [KEEP + OPTIMIZE / MINOR REFRESH / MODERATE REBRAND / FULL REBRAND]
+
+[2-3 sentence explanation of why this verdict.]
+
+### Recommended Actions
+
+1. [Most important action]
+2. [Second action]
+3. [Third action]
+
+---
+
+[If FULL REBRAND: activate DomainForge with context]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Patterns in Brand Auditing
+
+Never do these:
+
+- **False positivity** — "It's a good name, just needs better positioning." If the name is bad, say so.
+- **Founder feelings over facts** — The name was chosen with love. The audit is about market reality.
+- **Vague feedback** — "The name feels a bit dated" is useless. Say: "The -ify suffix peaked in 2014 and now reads as pre-Series A legacy tech."
+- **Ignoring digital footprint** — A great name on a bad domain is a Major weakness in 2025.
+- **Skipping competitive context** — A name that's mediocre in isolation might be disastrous next to its competitors, or surprisingly strong.
+
+Reference audits: `references/examples/sample-audits.md`

package/skills/brandaudit/references/audit-framework.md

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+# Audit Framework — BrandAudit Reference
+
+Detailed criteria for each of the 8 scoring dimensions when auditing an existing brand name.
+
+Key difference from DomainForge scoring: here you are evaluating a name that already exists in the market, with real customers, real digital footprint, and real history. Apply higher scrutiny — the name has had time to prove itself.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Brandability (25 points)
+
+For an existing brand, brandability is about whether the name has built equity — or is fighting against its own limitations.
+
+**25 pts:** Name is genuinely distinctive. Creates immediate differentiation in the category. Competitors cannot easily be confused with it. Could survive a logo-free environment (signage, podcast mention, word-of-mouth referral).
+
+**20 pts:** Solid brand. Some minor genericness or slight similarity to category language, but owns a clear space. Growing equity over time.
+
+**15 pts:** Functional but forgettable. Customers likely refer to it by product features rather than brand name. Equity accumulation is slow.
+
+**10 pts:** Weak brand. Describes the category too literally. Multiple competitors use similar constructions. Hard to trademark.
+
+**0-5 pts:** Brand liability. Name actively harms perception — too generic to be ownable, or so similar to competitors that confusion is frequent.
+
+**Audit question:** Do customers use the brand name when recommending the product, or do they describe it ("that project management tool")?
+
+---
+
+## 2. Pronunciation (15 points)
+
+For existing brands, pronunciation is measurable. You can infer it from context.
+
+**15 pts:** Zero ambiguity. Never requires spelling. Never mispronounced in meetings, on calls, or in press coverage.
+
+**12 pts:** Occasionally requires spelling on first use. Minor accent variation in some markets but not problematic.
+
+**8 pts:** Regularly mispronounced by new users. Support teams receive "how do you say this?" questions. Embarrassment potential in spoken referrals.
+
+**4 pts:** Active liability. Different audience segments say it differently with no consensus. Name requires a pronunciation guide or phonetic spelling in marketing.
+
+**0 pts:** Unpronounceable by a meaningful segment of the target audience.
+
+**Signals of a pronunciation problem:**
+- Customer emails address the company by the wrong name (spelling variant)
+- The brand has had to publish official pronunciation guidance
+- Sales reps avoid saying the brand name on calls
+- Press coverage shows multiple spelling/pronunciation variants
+
+---
+
+## 3. Memorability (15 points)
+
+For existing brands, test: do people get it right after hearing it once?
+
+**15 pts:** Sticks on first contact. High recall in surveys. Customers tag the brand correctly when recommending on social media.
+
+**12 pts:** Recalled correctly after 2-3 exposures. Some confusion with similar names but resolves quickly.
+
+**8 pts:** Low recall. Customers remember the product before the name. Requires significant marketing investment to maintain top-of-mind.
+
+**4 pts:** Forgettable. Customers describe what the brand does rather than its name. Re-acquisition cost is high because referrals don't stick.
+
+**0 pts:** Actively confusing. Regular customer acquisition friction ("Wait, is that [X] or [Y]?").
+
+---
+
+## 4. Length & Shape (10 points)
+
+**10 pts:** 4-8 characters. Works in all digital contexts without truncation. App icon, Slack notification, email subject line — clean everywhere.
+
+**8 pts:** 9-12 characters. Minor truncation in some contexts. No major issues.
+
+**5 pts:** 12-16 characters. Truncation is a regular problem. Social handles required abbreviation. App store listing shows cut-off name.
+
+**2 pts:** 16+ characters, or contains hyphens/numbers/special characters that complicate digital use.
+
+**Shape audit for existing brands:**
+- Check: how does the name truncate in a browser tab?
+- Check: does the email signature or sender name get cut off?
+- Check: does the Twitter/X handle accurately represent the full name?
+- Check: how does it appear in app store search results?
+
+---
+
+## 5. SEO Equity (10 points)
+
+For existing brands, this measures whether the name is an SEO asset or liability.
+
+**10 pts:** Brand name has high search authority. Searching the name returns owned properties in positions 1-3. Brand SERP is clean and controlled.
+
+**7 pts:** Brand name ranks well but some interference from non-owned entities (a city, a generic term, a person with the same name).
+
+**4 pts:** Significant SEO interference. First page of results is mixed between brand and unrelated entities. Customers searching the brand name land on competitor pages or irrelevant results.
+
+**0 pts:** Brand name is a generic term, a person's name, or a phrase with massive existing search volume. The brand cannot realistically rank for its own name at reasonable cost.
+
+**SEO audit signals:**
+- Search `[brand name]` and count how many of the first 10 results are owned by the brand
+- Check if any competitors are bidding on exact brand name in paid search
+- Test `[brand name] reviews` — does owned content appear or competitor aggregators?
+
+---
+
+## 6. Digital Footprint (10 points)
+
+How complete is the brand's ownership of its digital identity?
+
+**10 pts:** Owns exact-match .com (or appropriate TLD) + exact-match handle on all primary social platforms (X, LinkedIn, GitHub if relevant, Instagram if relevant). Consistent naming across all platforms.
+
+**7 pts:** Owns primary domain + most social handles. 1-2 minor gaps (less important platform, slight variation in handle).
+
+**4 pts:** Primary domain is suboptimal (wrong TLD or hyphenated). 2-3 social handle mismatches. Uses approximations like @[brand]hq or @[brand]app.
+
+**1 pt:** Domain is on a weak TLD while .com is squatted or owned by an unrelated party. Social handles are fragmented with no consistent identity.
+
+**Footprint audit:**
+- Exact domain they're using vs. what's available
+- @brand on X: do they own it or is it squatted/inactive?
+- github.com/brand: relevant for devtools and open source
+- Are there brand impostors? (fake accounts, parked pages, typosquatters?)
+
+---
+
+## 7. Trademark Safety (10 points)
+
+**10 pts:** Brand name is registered in all primary markets. No known challenges. Clear differentiation from any similar marks in adjacent categories.
+
+**7 pts:** No active conflicts. Some unregistered use in a different industry, but manageable. Registration is advised but not urgent.
+
+**4 pts:** Similar marks exist in adjacent categories. Some historical disputes or C&D letters received. International expansion may be restricted.
+
+**0 pts:** Active trademark conflict. Litigation risk is real. Scaling the brand in this name increases legal exposure.
+
+**Red flags for existing brands:**
+- Company has received a cease-and-desist in the past
+- The brand operates in a different country than where the conflicting mark is registered (expansion risk)
+- The brand name is a word or phrase that a larger company recently trademarked
+- The brand name closely resembles a big tech company's product name
+
+---
+
+## 8. Longevity (5 points)
+
+Will this name still work as the brand grows, changes, or expands?
+
+**5 pts:** Name is category-agnostic. Works for a solo product, a product suite, an acquired company, or an enterprise offering. Will not age poorly. No cultural or technology dependency.
+
+**3 pts:** Works well now, minor limitations at scale. Might require sub-branding if product expands significantly. Not embarrassingly tied to a current trend.
+
+**1 pt:** Name is tied to a specific feature, technology, or trend that may not be permanent. ("GPT" in a name, "Blockchain" in a name, "Covid" in a name). Or so narrowly descriptive it constrains the product roadmap.
+
+**0 pts:** Name is already aging. Built on a trend that peaked. Will require rebrand within 2-3 years regardless of current action.
+
+**Longevity audit questions:**
+- If the core technology behind this product changes, does the name still work?
+- If the company doubles its product scope, does the name allow for that?
+- Does the name tie the company to a price point or market segment it may want to leave?
+- Would a Series B investor be comfortable with this name on a pitch deck?

package/skills/brandaudit/references/examples/sample-audits.md

@@ -0,0 +1,239 @@
+# Sample Audits — BrandAudit Reference
+
+Three complete reference audits showing full output quality and format.
+
+---
+
+## Example 1: B2B SaaS — "TaskifyPro"
+
+**Context:** 3-year-old project management SaaS. Bootstrapped. $180k ARR. Competing against Linear, Asana, Monday. No trademark registered.
+
+---
+
+## BrandAudit — TaskifyPro
+
+**Industry:** B2B SaaS / Project Management
+**In use since:** 2021
+**Current domain:** taskifypro.io
+**Competitive set:** Linear, Asana, Monday.com, Height, Basecamp
+
+---
+
+### Score: 38/100
+
+| Factor | Score | Notes |
+|--------|-------|-------|
+| Brandability | 6/25 | Descriptor + dated suffix + "Pro" suffix = triple generic |
+| Pronunciation | 13/15 | Pronounceable, no issues |
+| Memorability | 6/15 | Forgettable. Customers likely say "that project management tool" |
+| Length & shape | 6/10 | 10 chars, truncates at "TaskifyP" in browser tab |
+| SEO equity | 3/10 | "Taskify" has 4 other tools, "Pro" adds no differentiation |
+| Digital footprint | 4/10 | On .io. .com owned by parked page. X handle is @taskifyprollc |
+| Trademark safety | 0/10 | Not registered. "Taskify" used by 3 other active products |
+| Longevity | 0/5 | -ify peaked 2014. "Pro" is meaningless. Will age worse each year. |
+
+---
+
+### Competitive Position
+
+Against Linear, Asana, and Monday, this name reads as a generic competitor — exactly what it competes against. Linear owns "clean, modern, fast." Asana owns "organized, enterprise." Monday owns "visual, flexible."
+
+TaskifyPro owns: nothing. It's the name of a feature, not a brand.
+
+If all five names were shown to a user without context, TaskifyPro would be identified as "some project management tool" while the others would suggest personalities. This is the worst possible outcome of naming.
+
+---
+
+### Perception Audit
+
+**Category signal:** Correct — clearly communicates project management. Also communicates that the brand couldn't find a better way to say it.
+**Audience signal:** SMB or prosumer. The "Pro" suffix reads as defensive ("we're serious, really") rather than premium.
+**Era signal:** 2014-2016. The -ify suffix peaked that year. The "Pro" suffix has been meaningless since about 2017.
+**Trust signal:** Weak. The name reads as a side project or a freelancer's tool, not a company that enterprises trust with their workflow.
+
+---
+
+### Weaknesses Found
+
+#### Critical
+- **Trademark unregistered with 3 active competing uses** — "Taskify" is used by at least 3 other active software products. This brand cannot register the name and has no legal protection. If any of those products files a trademark or sends a C&D, this brand must rename under pressure — the worst possible timing.
+- **Generic descriptor pattern** — "Taskify" describes the action of creating tasks. This is the definition of a non-registerable mark. The brand is building equity on a name it can never fully own.
+
+#### Major
+- **Dated -ify suffix** — The naming pattern peaked in 2014 and now reads as 8-10 years old. This creates a negative perception gap — the product may be better than competitors but the name signals older, cheaper.
+- **Domain mismatch** — Operating on taskifypro.io while taskifypro.com is parked. Every customer who intuitively types .com leaves the brand's ecosystem.
+- **Handle fragmentation** — @taskifyprollc on X is the corporate entity name, not the brand name. Search for @taskify or @taskifypro returns unrelated accounts.
+
+#### Minor
+- **"Pro" suffix adds no value** — It signals there's a "non-Pro" version (even if there isn't) and reads as a free tier upsell device.
+
+---
+
+### Verdict: FULL REBRAND
+
+This name has two Critical weaknesses — legal exposure and an un-ownable generic — stacked on top of three Major weaknesses. At $180k ARR and 3 years old, the equity is real but manageable to transition. Every additional year spent building on this name increases the cost of the inevitable change.
+
+The -ify suffix will not age better. The trademark situation will not improve on its own. The domain gap will not close.
+
+**Recommended Actions**
+
+1. Stop building equity on this name immediately. Plan a rebrand for Q2 of next year to give time for proper execution.
+2. Do not invest in major marketing, conference presence, or PR under the current name — you'll be rebuilding that investment in the new brand shortly.
+3. Activate DomainForge for a new name targeted at B2B SaaS / developer-adjacent productivity, Unicorn mode, emphasizing: must be ownable, must be non-descriptive, must be registerable as trademark.
+
+---
+
+*Activating DomainForge — B2B SaaS / Productivity archetype, Unicorn mode. Criteria: no -ify suffix, no descriptor pattern, must be trademark-registerable, must own .com or .io at standard pricing...*
+
+---
+
+## Example 2: Developer Tool — "SnapConfig"
+
+**Context:** 2-year-old developer tool for environment variable management. $40k ARR. Competing with Doppler, Infisical, Vault, dotenv.
+
+---
+
+## BrandAudit — SnapConfig
+
+**Industry:** DevTool / Security / Config Management
+**In use since:** 2022
+**Current domain:** snapconfig.dev
+**Competitive set:** Doppler, Infisical, HashiCorp Vault, Envkey, dotenv
+
+---
+
+### Score: 61/100
+
+| Factor | Score | Notes |
+|--------|-------|-------|
+| Brandability | 13/25 | Descriptive compound. "Config" hurts. "Snap" is interesting but owned elsewhere. |
+| Pronunciation | 15/15 | Perfect. No ambiguity. |
+| Memorability | 11/15 | "Snap" is sticky but "Config" dilutes it |
+| Length & shape | 7/10 | 10 chars, manageable |
+| SEO equity | 5/10 | "Snap" is dominated by Snapchat. "Config" is a generic term. |
+| Digital footprint | 5/10 | .dev domain is appropriate. @snapconfig available on GitHub. X handle is @snapconfigdev |
+| Trademark safety | 3/10 | "Snap" is a registered trademark by Snap Inc. (Snapchat). Adjacent risk if scaled. |
+| Longevity | 2/5 | "Config" will constrain if product scope expands beyond configuration |
+
+---
+
+### Competitive Position
+
+Against Doppler, Infisical, and Vault, SnapConfig is the most pronounceable and most immediately understood name. But it's also the most constrained. Doppler owns a distinctive brand (physics metaphor for shift in environment). Infisical owns the infosec/security angle. Vault owns the secure-storage-at-scale position.
+
+SnapConfig owns: "fast configuration." That's useful for early sales but doesn't build a defensible brand position.
+
+---
+
+### Perception Audit
+
+**Category signal:** Correct and clear. Communicates fast + configuration.
+**Audience signal:** Developer-oriented, mid-market. Not enterprise-grade (Vault is the enterprise player), not indie-hacker (dotenv is). Appropriate.
+**Era signal:** Neutral. Neither dated nor cutting-edge. Safe.
+**Trust signal:** Moderate. "Config" reads as a utility, not a platform. Fine for early customers, may limit enterprise sales.
+
+---
+
+### Weaknesses Found
+
+#### Critical
+- **Snap Inc. trademark exposure** — Snap Inc. holds active trademarks on "Snap" in software and communications categories. At $40k ARR this is theoretical risk. At $400k ARR or during a fundraise, this becomes due diligence red flag. C&D risk increases as the brand grows. Snap Inc. actively enforces its marks.
+
+#### Major
+- **SEO interference from Snapchat** — "Snap" is dominated by Snapchat in search. Any content marketing using the brand name is fighting Snap Inc.'s SEO domain authority. Paid search bids for "snap" are artificially inflated by Snap Inc. advertising.
+- **Scope prison** — "Config" bounds the brand to configuration management. If the product expands to secrets management, identity, or general developer infrastructure, the name fights the expansion.
+
+#### Minor
+- **@snapconfigdev X handle** — The "dev" suffix on the handle is a compromise that signals the primary handle was unavailable or unconsidered.
+
+---
+
+### Verdict: MODERATE REBRAND
+
+One Critical weakness (trademark) plus two Major weaknesses. The name has some equity built in the developer community but at 2 years and $40k ARR, the cost of transition is manageable. The trademark risk will only get worse — Snap Inc. is not a company that leaves adjacent marks uncontested.
+
+**Recommended Actions**
+
+1. Modify the name to remove "Snap" before the next funding round — any investor doing DD will flag this.
+2. Keep "Config" optional: find a name where "config" can be a product tagline ("Doppler for config") rather than the brand name itself.
+3. Explore: names in the "secure, fast, developer-native" space that aren't descriptive compounds.
+
+*Note: Full rebrand not required — this is a targeted fix to remove the trademark risk. The current brand has earned early trust that can transfer.*
+
+---
+
+## Example 3: Consumer App — "DailyMoodLogger"
+
+**Context:** Mental wellness mobile app. 1-year-old. 8,000 MAU. Competing with Daylio, Bearable, Moodnotes, Reflectly.
+
+---
+
+## BrandAudit — DailyMoodLogger
+
+**Industry:** Consumer / Mental Health / Mobile App
+**In use since:** 2023
+**Current domain:** dailymoodlogger.com
+**Competitive set:** Daylio, Bearable, Moodnotes, Reflectly, Finch
+
+---
+
+### Score: 22/100
+
+| Factor | Score | Notes |
+|--------|-------|-------|
+| Brandability | 2/25 | Pure descriptor. Not ownable. Reads like a feature description. |
+| Pronunciation | 12/15 | Pronounceable but 5 syllables reads long in spoken context |
+| Memorability | 3/15 | Un-memorable. Customers will say "that mood tracking app" |
+| Length & shape | 0/10 | 15 characters. Truncates everywhere. No natural abbreviation. |
+| SEO equity | 4/10 | Keyword-rich but unbranded — competes with category searches, not brand searches |
+| Digital footprint | 4/10 | Has .com but handle is @DailyMoodLog on most platforms (truncated) |
+| Trademark safety | 0/10 | Pure descriptor — cannot be trademarked. No protection possible. |
+| Longevity | -3/5 | Applied: 0. Name will constrain any scope expansion beyond daily mood logging. |
+
+---
+
+### Competitive Position
+
+Against Daylio (invented word, 2 syllables, extremely sticky), Bearable (warm, memorable, single word), and Moodnotes (clean compound), DailyMoodLogger sounds like it was named by someone describing the app to a developer, not by someone building a consumer brand.
+
+If all five names were tested in a blind survey ("which app would you trust with your mental health data?"), DailyMoodLogger would rank last by a wide margin. The name signals a free spreadsheet template, not a thoughtful wellness product.
+
+---
+
+### Perception Audit
+
+**Category signal:** Correct and exhaustively literal. The name describes the exact feature set. This is not how consumer brands are built.
+**Audience signal:** Wrong. Mental wellness apps need warmth, safety, and approachability. "Logger" is an engineering term. It signals data collection, not emotional support.
+**Era signal:** N/A — this name has no era. It reads as a prototype name that was never replaced.
+**Trust signal:** Very weak. In the mental health space, trust is the core product. A name that sounds like a debug utility undermines the trust signal at first contact.
+
+---
+
+### Weaknesses Found
+
+#### Critical
+- **Pure descriptor — legally un-ownable** — "Daily Mood Logger" describes an action. It cannot be registered as a trademark in any jurisdiction because it describes what the product does rather than identifying the brand. This brand will never have legal protection for its primary identifier.
+- **Consumer trust failure** — "Logger" is an engineering term. In mental health context, it evokes data harvesting. This is the opposite of what the product needs to signal.
+- **15-character length** — Truncates in every mobile context where the app competes (App Store search, home screen, notification sender, shared links).
+
+#### Major
+- **No competitive differentiation** — Nothing in this name differentiates from competitors. Any of the 50+ mood tracking apps could use this name.
+- **Word-of-mouth broken** — "Have you tried DailyMoodLogger?" is a sentence that makes the recommender sound like they're describing a spreadsheet. Customers will describe the app, not refer it by name.
+
+---
+
+### Verdict: FULL REBRAND
+
+Score of 22/100. Three Critical weaknesses. This is a name that was never meant to be a brand — it was a working title that wasn't replaced. At 1 year old and 8k MAU, the equity is entirely in the product and community, not the name. This is the best possible time to rebrand.
+
+The mental health space requires names that feel safe, warm, and human. The new name should sound like something a therapist might recommend, not something a developer would build for their personal data collection.
+
+**Recommended Actions**
+
+1. Rebrand before trying to grow. Every dollar spent acquiring users under this name is partially wasted — referral and word-of-mouth conversion will be higher under a proper brand.
+2. Do not launch on Product Hunt or pursue press under the current name.
+3. Activate DomainForge — Consumer AI / Wellness archetype, warm + approachable, 4-7 chars ideal, soft consonants, .app or .com.
+
+---
+
+*Activating DomainForge — Consumer / Wellness archetype. Criteria: warm phonetics (soft consonants: l, m, n, r, v), 4-7 characters, no clinical/medical language, no engineering terms ("log", "track", "data"), evokes reflection, growth, or emotional safety. Mode: Consumer AI...*