name-project

What this skill does

# Patrick's Naming System

Instructions for running an interactive naming session.

---

## What This Is

Instructions, seed data, and an evaluation formula for helping name projects through interactive, multi-round sessions. The agent gets progressively better at suggesting names based on your reactions. Everything happens in conversation.

The agent can use external tools (name generators, word-relationship APIs, web searches) opportunistically when they'd help break a creative rut. No fixed list — use whatever's available.

---

## Three Layers of Data

The system has three layers. Each builds on the one below it.

**Layer 1 — Base Seed (this document)**
General developer context, values, aesthetic preferences, and the evaluation formula. Ships with this file. Updated manually when general preferences change.

**Layer 2 — Persisted Taste Profile**
Learned across naming sessions. What patterns, sounds, vibes, and word types you're consistently drawn to or repelled by. Survives between sessions. Can be refined or cleared on request. Stored by the agent however it persists data (memory edits, a companion file, etc.).

**Layer 3 — Session Data**
The current naming session: project context, carried-forward selections, round history, per-session taste refinements. Cleared when the session ends (name locked or session explicitly closed).

When scoring or generating names, the agent applies all three layers: base seed as foundation, persisted taste as a lens, session data as the sharpest signal.

---

## Starting a Session

### Context Discovery

Before asking any questions, the agent should build its own understanding of the project by scanning what's available: README, package.json (description, keywords, tags), doc files, config files with descriptive metadata. Don't load code — look for descriptive signals.

The agent should also draw on its memory of past conversations and anything it already knows about the project.

### What the Agent Needs to Know

The agent needs enough context to generate good names in Round 1. The goal is to understand:

- What the project does and who it's for
- What it's LIKE — the core metaphor or feeling
- What emotional register it should hit
- What it must work as (package name, domain, repo, etc.)
- What sibling names exist in the ecosystem
- What themes, references, or imagery resonate
- What names or patterns to avoid

For concrete data points (what it does, what it must work as, sibling names), ask directly if unknown. For subjective dimensions (metaphor, feeling, themes), describe what you're trying to understand and prompt adaptively based on what you've already learned from project files and memory.

If the agent is confident about an answer from its own research, skip the question silently. If it inferred a subjective answer (like the project's emotional register), confirm it before proceeding.

After the initial scan and any questions, the agent should ask itself: "Do I have any follow-up questions that would meaningfully improve Round 1?" If yes, ask them. If not, move to research.

### Research Step

After context discovery and before generating Round 1, the agent does a silent research pass. Search for naming inspiration related to the project's domain, metaphors, themes, and cultural references. Look for how similar projects are named, what words and imagery exist in the space, and what unexpected connections might spark ideas. This enriches Round 1 without slowing the user down.

---

## Round Structure

Each round contains two kinds of names: **carried selections** (names you liked in previous rounds) and **fresh names** (new candidates). You should select fewer names each round, narrowing toward a decision.

**Round 1 — DIVERGE (6-8 fresh names)**
Maximum diversity. No default strategy bias — the agent evaluates the project context and chooses strategies accordingly. You select which names you like.

**Round 2 — CONVERGE (your selections + 4-6 fresh names)**
Carried selections appear alongside new names informed by taste patterns the agent detected. You select from the full list.

**Round 3 — REFINE (your selections + 2-4 fresh names)**
Tighter batch. NAME Scores shown for all candidates. You should be narrowing to 2-3.

**Round 4+ — POLISH (your selections + 1-2 fresh names)**
Final candidates. Full validation. The agent offers remix suggestions. You LOCK a name or choose RESET or REFINE.

### Carry-Forward

Names you select in any round appear in every subsequent round until you deselect them or reset. They're clearly marked as carried selections vs. fresh names. The list contracts as you select fewer each round.

### Interactive Prompts

Every round ends with an interactive multi-select prompt. The options are:

- Each name (carried selections clearly marked)
- "Regenerate new names" (always available)

The agent does NOT ask you to explain your choices unless it can't infer why from the pattern of selections. Figuring out your taste is primarily the agent's job.

After you select, the agent presents its analysis of what taste patterns emerged or shifted, then generates the next round.

### Regenerate

Available at every step. Throws away the current fresh names and generates a new batch. Carried selections and taste profile stay intact. No questions asked — just a fresh roll.

### Stall Detection

If you select the exact same set of names two rounds in a row, the fresh names aren't landing. The agent pauses and offers:

**RESET** — Wipe all selections and all taste/preference learnings from this session. Start completely fresh with new context discovery.

**REFINE** — Preserve your current selections. The agent does a fresh research pass based on current context and your taste profile, then asks interactive reflective questions to sharpen its understanding. After your answers, it replaces only the fresh names and you continue from where you were.

**Regenerate** — Just try new fresh names without questions.

**Lock [name]** — One option per carried selection, in case you're ready to commit.

### When You're Stuck

If few choices remain and you can't decide between finalists:

- Generate an ASCII comparison chart scored on the formula
- Ask grounding questions: "Which would you type in a terminal every day?" with each finalist as an option
- Offer remix moves: swap a syllable, translate a word, try a synonym with better mouth-feel

If you reject all fresh names repeatedly and have no carried selections:

- Ask what word you'd WANT to type every day, even if it's not a name yet
- Ask you to name a project whose name you love, and what you love about it
- Pivot the context: new metaphors, new cultural touchstones, different emotional register
- This is essentially an automatic REFINE trigger

---

## Session History

The agent maintains a running history for the duration of the session:

- Every name ever presented, with round number and whether selected, deselected, or ignored
- Current carried-forward selections
- Evolving taste profile with per-round deltas
- All NAME Scores computed
- Context data, restart count, refine count

Queryable at any time: "show me everything I've ever liked", "what patterns have you found", "compare my current selections", "what did I drop and why do you think I dropped it".

History clears when the session ends. Taste profile insights that seem persistent (not project-specific) get promoted to Layer 2.

---

## The NAME Score

An evaluation formula for scoring name candidates. Grounded in peer-reviewed research on brand naming, phonetic symbolism, and memorability.

### The Formula

```
NAME = (P × Wp) + (E × We) + (D × Wd) + (M × Wm) + (S × Ws) + (F × Wf) + (H × Wh) + (C × Wc)
```

All weights are context-adaptive. The agent sets them at session start based on the project's nature, audience, and use context. No factor is hardcoded as #1. Default weight range: 1.0–3.0. Each criterion scored 0–5.

### The 8 Criteria

**P — Phonetic Quality**
How it feels to say and type.