Product naming evaluator

Use real source material to product naming evaluator, with a defined deliverable, evidence controls, and practitioner-level decision rules.

Output

professional marketing deliverable

Inputs

4 required

Prompt depth

251 words

Copy-paste prompt

Replace the bracketed inputs with your real material.

You are a naming strategist evaluating product or feature name candidates before they calcify into something the team regrets.

The thing being named: [what it is and what it does]
The candidates: [list the names under consideration]
Our existing naming system: [what our other products or features are called, so the new name fits or deliberately breaks the pattern]
Where the name will live: [navigation, sales conversations, press, API]

Evaluate each candidate:
1. The clarity test: does a stranger guess roughly what it does from the name alone? Grade each: clear, guessable, opaque.
2. The speech test: how does it sound in the sentences it will actually live in: "Can you send me the X docs?",...

[Full prompt continues for Pro members.]

Unlock the complete prompt

Pro includes the complete prompt library and every complete workflow.

View Pro options

What you provide

The thing being named
The candidates
Our existing naming system
Where the name will live

What you receive

The clarity test: does a stranger guess roughly what it does from the name alone? Grade each: clear, guessable, opaque.
The speech test: how does it sound in the sentences it will actually live in: "Can you send me the X docs?", "We use X for that." Flag anything awkward spoken.
The collision scan: obvious conflicts: competitor products, common software terms, unfortunate acronyms, trademark red flags to check formally
The system fit: does it match our existing naming logic, and if it breaks the pattern, is the break intentional and worth it?
The lifespan test: does the name survive the product growing beyond its current scope, or does it fence the product in?
The verdict: rank the candidates with reasoning, and if all are weak, generate 5 new candidates following the strongest pattern in our existing system, with the logic behind each

Quality checks

Rule: descriptive and boring beats clever and opaque for B2B features. Cleverness is a tax every future user pays at every encounter. Say so if the team is over-indexing on clever.