@veyralabs/skills 0.1.0

package/skills/brandaudit/references/rebrand-decisions.md

@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
+# Rebrand Decisions — BrandAudit Reference
+
+When to rebrand, when to optimize, and when to leave the name alone. The decision framework, cost analysis, and migration playbook.
+
+---
+
+## The Core Decision
+
+Rebranding has two failure modes:
+
+1. **Rebranding when you shouldn't** — destroying earned brand equity, confusing loyal customers, wasting resources on a name change when the real problem is positioning or product
+2. **Not rebranding when you should** — continuing to build equity on a broken foundation, paying higher CAC permanently because the name fights your marketing
+
+The goal of BrandAudit is to identify which failure mode is the actual risk.
+
+---
+
+## Decision Matrix
+
+| Score | Critical weaknesses | Major weaknesses | Verdict |
+|-------|--------------------|--------------------|---------|
+| 85-100 | 0 | 0-1 | KEEP + OPTIMIZE |
+| 70-84 | 0 | 0-2 | KEEP + OPTIMIZE or MINOR REFRESH |
+| 55-69 | 0 | 2-3 | MINOR REFRESH or MODERATE REBRAND |
+| 40-54 | 0-1 | 3+ | MODERATE REBRAND |
+| 25-39 | 1-2 | Any | MODERATE or FULL REBRAND |
+| Below 25 | 2+ | Any | FULL REBRAND |
+
+Score is a strong signal, not a deterministic rule. Context overrides score in edge cases (see below).
+
+---
+
+## KEEP + OPTIMIZE
+
+**Verdict conditions:**
+- Score 70+
+- No Critical weaknesses
+- Weaknesses are all fixable without changing the name itself
+
+**What "optimize" means:**
+
+*Domain:*
+- Purchase the .com if you're on .io/.co and it's available for <$500
+- Redirect all domain variants to primary domain
+- Set up trademark monitoring for domain squatters
+
+*Social:*
+- Acquire inactive squatted handles via platform processes (Twitter: twitter.com/help, Instagram: support)
+- Standardize handle format across all platforms
+- Update all bios, links, and descriptions to be consistent
+
+*SEO:*
+- Build brand SERP dominance (own positions 1-5 for brand name queries)
+- Create content that intercepts brand + category searches
+- Register brand name in Google Knowledge Panel
+
+*Legal:*
+- File trademark registration in primary markets if not already done
+- File in expansion markets 12 months before launch
+
+**When score is 70+ but perception is off:**
+Don't rebrand the name — address the positioning. A name audit can reveal that the name is fine but the tagline, visual identity, or messaging is creating the wrong perception. Fix those first.
+
+---
+
+## MINOR REFRESH
+
+**Verdict conditions:**
+- Score 55-75
+- Major weaknesses present but brand has significant equity
+- Name can be adjusted without losing recognition
+
+**Common minor refresh moves:**
+
+*TLD upgrade:*
+Moving from [brand].net → [brand].com (if available)
+Moving from [brand]-app.com → [brand].io or [brand].app
+Cost: domain acquisition + redirect setup + 6-month transition period
+
+*Handle recovery:*
+Acquiring squatted/inactive social handles via platform processes or negotiated purchase
+Timeline: 2-8 weeks for platform processes, 1-3 months for negotiated purchases
+
+*Spelling adjustment:*
+Examples: `Trakk → Track`, `Gr8Notes → GreatNotes`, `Flckr → Flicker`
+Risk level: LOW if done before significant brand equity is built. HIGH if done after 2+ years.
+Customer confusion period: 3-6 months typical.
+
+*Capitalization/spacing standardization:*
+`MyBrand` → `Mybrand` → `MYBRAND` — standardizing across channels is free and low-risk.
+
+**Minor refresh migration checklist:**
+1. Acquire new asset (domain, handle) before announcing
+2. Update primary touchpoints simultaneously (website, social bios, email signatures)
+3. Maintain redirects from old assets for minimum 24 months
+4. Announce the refresh as a product update, not a rebrand (reduce customer confusion)
+
+---
+
+## MODERATE REBRAND
+
+**Verdict conditions:**
+- Score 40-60
+- 1 Critical weakness that can be resolved by modifying (not replacing) the name
+- Brand has real equity but in a name that's creating active friction
+
+**What "moderate" means:**
+The core brand identity (visual, voice, audience) stays. Only the name changes — and the new name should be a clear evolution of the old one, not a departure.
+
+**Moderate rebrand strategies:**
+
+*Prefix addition:*
+`Flow` (too generic) → `Withflow` or `Flowhq` or `Getflow`
+Preserves phonetic recognition while escaping the generic trap.
+
+*Suffix addition:*
+`Arc` (taken/trademark issue) → `Arcly` or `Arcbase` or `Arcapp`
+Less ideal than prefix (see dated suffix patterns) but usable.
+
+*Spelling modification:*
+`Synapse` (medical connotation too strong) → `Synapz` or `Synaps`
+Works when the modified version retains pronunciation but differentiates enough for trademark.
+
+*TLD-as-domain-name:*
+`del.icio.us` → `delicious.com` (historical example of reversing a creative TLD domain to a clean one)
+
+**When moderate rebrand is wrong:**
+- When the core problem is the name concept, not the execution (scope prison, wrong category signal) — these need a full rebrand
+- When the brand has very high equity — even moderate changes will cause significant customer confusion
+
+**Moderate rebrand migration checklist:**
+1. Secure new name assets before announcing (domain, social, trademark filing)
+2. Run the old name in parallel for 6-12 months ("formerly known as")
+3. Update all SEO canonical tags and redirects
+4. Notify existing customers 30 days before cutover
+5. Don't change visual identity at the same time — too much change at once loses trust
+
+---
+
+## FULL REBRAND
+
+**Verdict conditions:**
+- Score below 40, OR
+- 2+ Critical weaknesses, OR
+- 1 Critical weakness that cannot be resolved by modification
+
+**When to recommend a full rebrand without hesitation:**
+
+1. **Active trademark conflict** — Legal letter received or litigation risk is real. The cost of rebranding now is a fraction of the legal defense cost later.
+
+2. **Pronunciation catastrophe** — Name is consistently said wrong by more than 30% of new encounters. Word-of-mouth is broken at the most fundamental level.
+
+3. **Wrong category signal** — The name implies a completely different type of product. Every first conversation starts with correcting the assumption the name creates.
+
+4. **Cultural landmine in a primary expansion market** — The name means something offensive or embarrassing in a language spoken by a target market of significant size.
+
+5. **Competitor shadow** — The brand is consistently confused with a larger, better-known competitor. Customer acquisition is paying to fight the confusion.
+
+**The rebrand timing question:**
+
+*Rebrand now vs. later:*
+- Early stage (pre-product-market-fit): Almost always rebrand now. Equity is low, cost is low.
+- Growth stage (post-PMF, pre-scale): Evaluate carefully. Equity is building. Balance cost of confusion against cost of friction.
+- Scale stage (significant revenue, large customer base): Only rebrand for Critical weaknesses. The transition cost is high but manageable with proper execution.
+- Exit stage (M&A or IPO in process): Don't rebrand. Any identity change during due diligence creates uncertainty. Address post-close.
+
+**Full rebrand migration playbook:**
+
+Phase 1 — Name selection (4-8 weeks):
+- Activate DomainForge with brand context
+- Select new name, secure domain + social + trademark filing simultaneously
+- Keep new name secret until all assets are secured
+
+Phase 2 — Asset creation (4-8 weeks):
+- New logo, visual identity
+- New website on new domain
+- Updated product UI (if name appears in product)
+- Updated legal entity if necessary (not always required)
+
+Phase 3 — Staged launch (1-2 weeks):
+- Announce to employees first
+- Notify major customers and partners directly (email, not press release)
+- Publish public announcement
+- Update all external channels simultaneously on launch day
+
+Phase 4 — Transition (12-24 months):
+- Old domain redirects to new domain (permanent 301 redirect)
+- Old social handles redirect or post pinned notice
+- "Formerly [old name]" in bio and marketing materials for 6-12 months
+- Update any third-party directories, integrations, and App Store listings
+
+**What the announcement should say:**
+- State the reason (growth, expanding scope, etc.) — be honest but positive
+- Don't apologize for the old name
+- Focus on continuity (same team, same product, same commitment)
+- Make it easy for customers to find the new identity
+
+---
+
+## The Equity Preservation Rule
+
+The older a brand name, the more expensive it is to change — regardless of how bad the name is.
+
+| Brand age | Estimated transition cost | Recommendation threshold |
+|-----------|--------------------------|--------------------------|
+| 0-1 year | Low | Fix any Major weakness |
+| 1-3 years | Moderate | Fix Critical + Major weaknesses |
+| 3-7 years | High | Fix Critical weaknesses only |
+| 7+ years | Very high | Fix only existential Critical weaknesses |
+
+"Transition cost" includes: customer confusion, SEO reset, brand collateral replacement, legal entity changes, partner/integration updates, and CAC increase during the confusion window (typically 6-18 months).
+
+A 7-year-old brand with a Major weakness (wrong TLD, dated suffix) is almost always better served by optimizing around the weakness than paying the full transition cost of a rebrand.
+
+A 2-year-old brand with a Critical weakness (active trademark conflict) should rebrand now, before the equity gets much higher and the cost gets much worse.

package/skills/brandaudit/references/weakness-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+# Weakness Patterns — BrandAudit Reference
+
+Common brand name failure patterns with real-world examples. Use this library to recognize and articulate weaknesses quickly.
+
+---
+
+## Pattern 1: The Dated Suffix
+
+**What it looks like:** Names ending in suffixes that peaked at a specific moment in startup culture.
+
+| Suffix | Peak era | Signal now |
+|--------|----------|-----------|
+| -ly | 2009–2013 | Legacy SaaS (Bitly, Topsy, Storify) |
+| -ify | 2012–2016 | Pre-Series A legacy (Shopify escaped, most didn't) |
+| -io | 2013–2018 | Early tech credibility. Now saturated. |
+| -ble | 2011–2015 | Consumer app era (Tumblr escaped, most didn't) |
+| Hub | 2010–2016 | Enterprise SaaS (HubSpot escaped, "SMBHub" didn't) |
+| -ster | 2000–2008 | Napster era. Now reads as parody. |
+| Smart- | 2014–2020 | IoT/consumer tech. Now reads as generic. |
+
+**Real example of escape:** Shopify has -ify but built so much brand equity that the suffix is irrelevant. Most brands are not Shopify.
+
+**How to flag it:** "The -ify suffix peaked in 2014 and is now associated with pre-Series A legacy tools. The name reads as 5-8 years old, which creates a perception gap with the product's actual quality."
+
+---
+
+## Pattern 2: The Descriptor Trap
+
+**What it looks like:** Name describes exactly what the product does, leaving no room for brand equity or product expansion.
+
+**Examples:**
+- `OnlineScheduler` — describes the feature, not the brand
+- `FastInvoice` — product description masquerading as a brand
+- `TeamChat` — Slack is also team chat. Slack wins.
+- `CloudStorage` — no differentiation, no personality, no trademark path
+
+**Why it's a problem:**
+1. Cannot be trademarked (purely descriptive names are not protectable)
+2. Competes with SEO for its own category keywords
+3. Constrains product roadmap (what happens when you add features that aren't "fast invoicing"?)
+4. No memorability — customers describe the product, not the brand
+
+**How to flag it:** "This name describes the product category, not the brand. It cannot be trademarked in most jurisdictions and will always lose SEO battles to category-level searches. It also signals a commodity, not a premium product."
+
+---
+
+## Pattern 3: The Competitor Shadow
+
+**What it looks like:** A smaller brand's name is too close to a larger, better-known brand in the same space. The smaller brand lives in the competitor's shadow.
+
+**Real-world proximity problems:**
+- A project management tool called "Linar" (shadow: Linear)
+- A payment tool called "Stripe" (taken) → any variation lives in Stripe's shadow
+- A design tool with "Fig" in the name (shadow: Figma)
+- Any CRM with "Hub" in the name (shadow: HubSpot)
+- Any AI tool with "Claude" adjacent naming (shadow: Anthropic)
+
+**How to flag it:** "In a search for '[competitor]', this brand appears as a variant or typo. Customers may find this brand by accident rather than intent — and some will leave confused. Investor due diligence will surface this as a risk."
+
+---
+
+## Pattern 4: The International Landmine
+
+**What it looks like:** A name that works in English but has negative, embarrassing, or confusing connotations in a target market language.
+
+**Famous real examples:**
+- Mitsubishi Pajero (means "masturbator" in Argentine Spanish)
+- Chevrolet Nova (no va = "doesn't go" in Spanish)
+- Puffs tissues (puff = slang in UK)
+- Vicks (sounds like a vulgar word in German)
+
+**How to check:**
+- Run the name through native speakers in Spanish, French, German, Mandarin, Arabic (prioritize by market)
+- Check if the name resembles any common words in target languages
+- Check if the name has phonetic similarity to offensive terms when said aloud
+
+**How to flag it:** "The name sounds like [X] in [language], which means [Y]. This is a blocker for expansion into [market] without a name change or market-specific rebrand."
+
+---
+
+## Pattern 5: The Pronunciation Split
+
+**What it looks like:** Two or more reasonable pronunciations of the same name, with no clear winner. The brand has silently accepted this and never addressed it.
+
+**Examples:**
+- Xiaomi — most Western users say it wrong (correct: "shao-mee")
+- GIF — the eternal war (hard G vs. soft G)
+- Figma — most say "FIG-mah" (correct — but new users often say "fig-MAH")
+- Hulu — some say "HOO-loo", some say "HYOO-loo"
+
+**Red flags for existing brands:**
+- Press coverage shows phonetic spellings ("the 'figma' tool", the "'giff' format")
+- Customer success teams have a standard correction script
+- Founder has given interviews specifically about pronunciation
+
+**How to flag it:** "This name has no dominant pronunciation convention after [X] years in market. When customers can't confidently say a brand name, they avoid saying it — reducing word-of-mouth by an unmeasurable but meaningful amount."
+
+---
+
+## Pattern 6: The Squatted Asset
+
+**What it looks like:** The brand's most valuable digital assets (exact-match .com, primary social handles) are owned by someone else.
+
+**Variants:**
+- `.com` is parked or owned by an unrelated business → brand operates on `.io`, `.co`, or a hyphenated domain
+- Primary X/Twitter handle is squatted by an inactive account
+- GitHub org name is taken by an unrelated project
+- Brand name is a person's name and that person has strong search presence
+
+**Cost of squatted assets:**
+- Every customer who types `.com` instinctively lands somewhere else
+- Paid search is required to intercept branded queries (expensive long-term)
+- Customer support handles more "I can't find your website" tickets
+- The gap communicates "we haven't finished building this"
+
+**How to flag it:** "The brand's .com is [owned by X / parked / redirecting to competitor]. Every customer who types [brand].com instinctively leaves the brand's ecosystem. This is a Major weakness with a defined cost and a defined solution."
+
+---
+
+## Pattern 7: The Age Trap
+
+**What it looks like:** A name that was perfect for a 2016 startup but signals the wrong era for a 2025 company trying to look like a modern leader.
+
+**Signals of age:**
+- Double vowels (Fiverr, Tumblr) — feels like 2010-2015
+- Dropping vowels entirely (Dribbble, Flickr) — feels like 2006-2012
+- ".io" in the actual brand name (not just domain) — 2014-2018
+- "App" in the product name (TaskApp, NoteApp) — 2012-2016
+- "Solutions" or "Systems" in name — 2000-2010 enterprise era
+
+**Note:** Some brands transcend their era through market dominance (Tumblr, Flickr). Most don't.
+
+**How to flag it:** "The naming convention [specific pattern] was dominant in [era]. It now reads as [X] years old, creating a perception gap between the brand's visual identity (which appears modern) and the name's era signal (which implies a legacy product)."
+
+---
+
+## Pattern 8: The Scope Prison
+
+**What it looks like:** A brand name that locks the company into a specific product, technology, or market — preventing natural expansion.
+
+**Examples:**
+- "PDFMerge" — what happens when they add email signing?
+- "LocalDelivery" — what happens when they expand nationwide?
+- "CryptoTax" — what happens when crypto taxation is automated away?
+- "RemoteTeam" — what happens when hybrid becomes dominant?
+- "GPTSummary" — what happens when the underlying model changes or GPT becomes a dirty word?
+
+**The test:** Complete this sentence with 3-5 possible future versions of the company: "In 5 years, [brand] will also [do X, enter Y market, offer Z]. Does the name still work?"
+
+If the answer is no for 2 or more scenarios, the name is a scope prison.
+
+**How to flag it:** "The name contains [specific element] that bounds the brand to [current market/technology/feature]. Three foreseeable expansions — [A, B, C] — would require explaining why a company called [brand name] now does something different from what the name implies."
+
+---
+
+## Pattern 9: The Trademark Time Bomb
+
+**What it looks like:** A brand has been operating under a name for years without registering it — or registered it in one market but not others — and a conflict is emerging.
+
+**High-risk scenarios:**
+- Bootstrapped brand that skipped legal (common) — name may be unregistered after 3+ years
+- Brand expanding internationally into markets where a different company holds the name
+- Brand using a name that a bigger company recently began using for a new product
+- Brand using a common word that's suddenly being aggressively trademarked in the category
+
+**Warning signs:**
+- Company received any C&D letter, even one they ignored
+- Investor due diligence flagged naming risk
+- A larger company launched a product with the same or very similar name in the past 12 months
+
+**How to flag it:** "The brand has not registered [specific mark] in [market]. A competing registration exists in [jurisdiction]. This becomes critical if the brand raises capital, expands to [market], or attracts acquisition interest — all of which trigger due diligence that will surface this conflict."
+
+---
+
+## Pattern 10: The Vanity Founder Name
+
+**What it looks like:** Brand named after its founder, creating dependency and limiting exit potential.
+
+**When this works:** Luxury, professional services, investment firms (Blackstone, Goldman Sachs — founders who became the brand)
+
+**When this doesn't work:**
+- Tech products where the founder is not a celebrity
+- B2B tools where enterprise buyers prefer institutional brands
+- Any brand that plans to be acquired (acquirers often want neutral brand equity)
+- When the founder might leave (partnership splits, exits)
+
+**How to flag it:** "A brand named after its founder creates equity that's inseparable from the individual. This is appropriate for [scenarios where it works] but creates friction in [specific context — B2B sales, acquisition, founder exit]. If the business trajectory includes any of these, a rebrand now is significantly cheaper than one during a high-stakes moment."

package/skills/competitornames/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,250 @@
+---
+name: competitornames
+description: >
+  Competitive Naming Landscape Analyzer. Activate when a user wants to understand how competitors are named in their space, before naming a new product, during a rebrand, or when asking "what naming styles are overused in my category?" or "what would make my name stand out?". Also trigger when DomainForge or BrandAudit is active and competitive naming context would sharpen the output. Maps all competitor names by pattern and style, identifies what's saturated, and surfaces naming whitespace — the styles and patterns no competitor in the space is using. Produces a naming brief that feeds directly into DomainForge when a new name is needed.
+---
+
+# CompetitorNames — Competitive Naming Landscape Analyzer
+
+You are a naming strategist analyzing an entire market's naming conventions to find what's overused, what's underused, and where a new name can own a distinct position.
+
+Most naming happens in a vacuum. The founder picks a name they like without asking: what are all my competitors called, and how does my name sit next to them? CompetitorNames answers that question systematically.
+
+## Core Philosophy
+
+A name that scores 85/100 in isolation can score 40/100 in context. If every competitor in your space uses invented two-syllable words ending in vowels, your invented two-syllable word ending in a vowel is invisible — even if it's technically a great name.
+
+Naming whitespace is the gap between what the market is doing and what hasn't been done yet. Finding it is the job.
+
+---
+
+## When to Activate
+
+**Explicit triggers:**
+- "What naming patterns do my competitors use?"
+- "I want to name my product differently from everyone in the space"
+- "Is my name too similar to others in this category?"
+- "What naming styles are saturated in [industry]?"
+- "Help me understand the naming landscape before I pick a name"
+
+**Implicit triggers:**
+- DomainForge is active → run CompetitorNames first to brief it on what to avoid
+- BrandAudit is active → add competitive naming context to the audit
+- User describes a market category → analyze naming patterns as context
+- User says their name "sounds like everyone else" → diagnose the pattern
+
+**Integration:**
+- Run before DomainForge to produce a naming brief that shapes name generation
+- Run alongside BrandAudit to show how the audited brand sits in the competitive landscape
+- Output feeds directly into DomainForge Step 1 (archetype detection) and Step 2 (name generation)
+
+---
+
+## Step 1 — Build the Competitor Name List
+
+Gather a minimum of 8–12 competitor names. Include:
+
+1. **Direct competitors** — same product category, same target audience
+2. **Indirect competitors** — adjacent category, overlapping audience
+3. **Aspirational peers** — companies the user wants to be compared to
+4. **Market leaders** — the 2-3 names that define the category's naming standard
+
+If the user provides fewer than 8 names, use web search to complete the list. A competitive naming analysis with fewer than 8 data points is statistically weak.
+
+---
+
+## Step 2 — Classify Each Name
+
+For every competitor name, assign:
+
+**Style category:**
+- Invented word (Figma, Vercel, Notion)
+- Modified real word (Stripe, Loom, Slack)
+- Real word used out-of-context (Linear, Arc, Mercury)
+- Descriptive compound (TaskManager, CloudSync)
+- Latin/Greek root (Nexus, Apex, Forma)
+- Metaphor/concept (Relay, Drift, Pulse)
+- Founder/person name (Basecamp, Mailchimp)
+- Acronym (JIRA, SAP, IBM)
+- Geographic/cultural reference (Amazon, Patagonia)
+
+**Phonetic profile:**
+- Hard consonants (Stripe, Vercel, Brex)
+- Soft consonants (Loom, Notion, Calm)
+- Short + punchy (Zed, Bun, Arc)
+- Long + elegant (Amplitude, Intercom, Airtable)
+- Ends in vowel (Figma, Vercel, Dropbox — note: Dropbox ends in x)
+- Ends in hard stop (Stripe, Slack, Brex)
+
+**Length:**
+- Ultra-short (1-4 chars): Zed, Bun, Nx
+- Short (5-7 chars): Slack, Figma, Linear
+- Medium (8-10 chars): Airtable, Intercom, Amplitude
+- Long (11+): Squarespace, HubSpot, SalesForce
+
+**Archetype alignment:**
+Which archetype does this name signal? (B2B SaaS, DevTool, Consumer, Fintech, etc.)
+
+Full pattern taxonomy: `references/pattern-analysis.md`
+
+---
+
+## Step 3 — Map the Naming Landscape
+
+Group competitors by their dominant naming pattern. Visualize which clusters are crowded and which are empty.
+
+**Saturation analysis:**
+
+For each pattern, count how many competitors use it:
+- 1-2 competitors: low saturation — viable territory
+- 3-4 competitors: moderate saturation — requires stronger execution
+- 5+ competitors: high saturation — avoid unless exceptional execution
+- Dominant pattern (majority use it): market convention — breaking it is risky but differentiating
+
+**Example mapping for a hypothetical project management category:**
+
+```
+Invented words (4):    Notion, Linear, Height, Coda         → SATURATED
+Real words (3):        Asana, Monday, Loom                  → MODERATE
+Descriptive (5):       TaskFlow, ProjectHub, WorkSync...    → VERY SATURATED
+Short + punchy (2):    Arc, Plane                           → LOW SATURATION
+Metaphor/concept (1):  Basecamp                             → OPEN
+Latin/Greek (0):       —                                    → WHITESPACE
+Fintech-style (0):     —                                    → WHITESPACE
+```
+
+Full whitespace mapping methodology: `references/whitespace-mapping.md`
+
+---
+
+## Step 4 — Identify Naming Whitespace
+
+Whitespace = a naming style or pattern that is valid for the category but unused by competitors.
+
+**How to identify whitespace:**
+
+1. Look at patterns with 0-1 competitors — these are open territory
+2. Look at patterns that work well in adjacent categories but haven't crossed over yet
+3. Look at what the market leaders in other categories are called — could those naming conventions work here?
+4. Look at what the "aspirational" positioning would require — what does a category-defining name in this space look like?
+
+**Types of whitespace:**
+
+- **Style whitespace** — a naming style nobody in the space uses (e.g., everyone uses invented words, nobody uses real-word-out-of-context)
+- **Phonetic whitespace** — a phonetic profile that's missing (e.g., everyone uses soft consonants, nobody uses hard consonant openers)
+- **Length whitespace** — a length tier that's empty (e.g., everyone is 7-10 chars, ultra-short 3-4 char names are available)
+- **Era whitespace** — competitors are clustered in a dated naming era, opening space for a more contemporary approach
+
+---
+
+## Step 5 — Produce the Naming Brief
+
+Synthesize findings into a brief that directly feeds DomainForge:
+
+**The brief answers:**
+1. What naming patterns are overused in this space? (avoid these)
+2. What naming patterns are underused? (explore these)
+3. What does the dominant naming convention signal about the category's positioning? (is there opportunity to break convention?)
+4. What phonetic profile would make a new name stand out?
+5. What length tier is underrepresented?
+6. What's the minimum differentiation requirement? (the new name must be at least X different from the current landscape)
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+## CompetitorNames — [Category/Market]
+
+**Market:** [category description]
+**Competitors analyzed:** [count]
+
+---
+
+### Naming Landscape Map
+
+| Name | Style | Phonetic | Length | Archetype signal |
+|------|-------|----------|--------|-----------------|
+| [Name] | [style] | [hard/soft/mixed] | [chars] | [B2B/DevTool/etc] |
+...
+
+---
+
+### Pattern Distribution
+
+**Saturated (avoid):**
+- [Pattern]: [list of competitors using it] — [X] of [total] competitors
+
+**Moderate (viable with strong execution):**
+- [Pattern]: [list] — [X] of [total]
+
+**Open territory (0-1 competitors):**
+- [Pattern]: [0 or 1 competitor] — underutilized
+
+**Whitespace (0 competitors):**
+- [Pattern]: no competitor in this space uses this — strong differentiation opportunity
+
+---
+
+### Competitive Positioning Analysis
+
+[2-3 paragraphs analyzing what the naming landscape says about the category.
+What does the dominant pattern signal? What's the opportunity for differentiation?
+Who is trying to break from the convention and how?]
+
+---
+
+### Naming Brief for This Market
+
+**Avoid:**
+- [Pattern 1] — [reason: saturated / too similar to competitor X]
+- [Pattern 2] — [reason]
+
+**Explore:**
+- [Pattern 1] — [reason: whitespace / strong differentiation]
+- [Pattern 2] — [reason]
+
+**Phonetic target:** [hard/soft, ends in X, length range]
+
+**Differentiation requirement:** New name must [specific criteria]
+
+**Archetype recommendation:** [which archetype to name for, and why]
+
+---
+
+### DomainForge Brief
+
+[Handoff block for DomainForge, pre-loaded with all relevant context]
+
+Archetype: [detected archetype]
+Mode: [recommended mode]
+Avoid: [patterns, suffixes, styles]
+Target: [phonetic profile, length, style whitespace to explore]
+Competitive context: [what this name needs to achieve vs. the landscape]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Integration with DomainForge
+
+When CompetitorNames is complete and the user needs a new name:
+
+1. Pass the naming brief directly to DomainForge
+2. DomainForge skips its own archetype detection (CompetitorNames already did it)
+3. DomainForge uses the "Avoid" list as hard constraints during generation
+4. DomainForge explores the whitespace patterns first before standard techniques
+
+Handoff line:
+> "Competitive landscape mapped. Activating DomainForge with [archetype] + [whitespace opportunity] + [avoid list]..."
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Patterns in Competitive Analysis
+
+- **Too few competitors** — 5 names is not a landscape. Get to 8-12 minimum.
+- **Ignoring indirect competitors** — A user switching from Notion to a new tool compares both names. Notion is relevant even if it's not a direct competitor.
+- **Confusing correlation with convention** — "3 competitors use invented words" is not a convention. It's a coincidence. Convention requires 50%+ of the market.
+- **Missing the era signal** — Always note if the dominant naming pattern is dated. A market full of -ify and -io names is an opportunity, not a constraint.
+- **Whitespace without validation** — Not every open territory is safe. "No one in project management uses geographic names" is whitespace, but it's not good whitespace. Filter: would a name using this pattern be appropriate for the category and audience?
+
+Reference analyses: `references/examples/sample-analyses.md`