About
Founders deserve names with evidence.
Why this exists
Naming is the one decision a founder makes early, alone, and cannot easily undo.
Most tools treat it as a word problem. Feed in a keyword, receive a hundred permutations, pick whichever sounds least bad at eleven at night. The judgement — the part that actually matters — gets handed straight back to the person least equipped to make it that week.
We built the opposite. A brief that asks what a naming consultancy would ask, work that reads the category before it proposes anything, and candidates that each come with the argument for and against them. You still choose. You just choose knowing why.
What we hold to
I
Evidence over instinct
A name you can argue for is worth more than a name you merely like. Every candidate arrives with its construction, its audience, and its weaknesses stated plainly.
II
The caveat is the value
Anyone can generate words. The useful part is being told which ones will cost you — in spelling, in search, in a category already crowded with the same idea.
III
Verified, not estimated
A green tick that turns out to be wrong is worse than no tick at all. Availability is checked against the authoritative source, and where an answer cannot be had, we say so.
IV
Finish the job
A name on its own is an unfinished thought. Colour, type, voice and a set of marks are the difference between a word and a brand.
How it is built
The naming, brand and logo work runs on Claude — not as a thin wrapper over a prompt, but with the whole brief in front of it and a standard of craft written into the instructions. Domain availability comes from the registries themselves.
Where a check cannot be made with confidence, it is reported as unknown rather than dressed up as a yes. That is the whole difference between a tool you can act on and one you have to second-guess.