Purpose

Generate scored domain name candidates for a project or business, assess availability and trademark risk, and deliver a ranked recommendation with clear justification for the top pick.

When to use this skill

• User needs domain name ideas for a new project, product, or company
• User wants to evaluate whether a specific domain name is good (brandability, spelling, conflicts)
• User asks for TLD recommendations (.com vs .io vs .dev etc.)
• User needs a trademark conflict pre-screen before purchasing a domain
• A naming brainstorm needs structure: generation → filtering → scoring → recommendation

Do not use this skill when

• The task is DNS record configuration, nameserver setup, or domain transfer mechanics — that is infrastructure work
• The user needs web hosting recommendations or SSL certificate setup
• The request is about SEO keyword strategy (even if domain-related) — prefer

  market-research

• The user needs a full brand identity (logo, colors, voice) — this skill covers only the name and domain
• The task is app store naming or publishing — prefer

  app-publishing

Operating procedure

Phase 1 — Requirements gathering

1. Clarify the naming brief:
   • Project/product description: What does it do? Who is the audience?
   • Naming preferences: Any syllable count, language, or style preferences? Must-include or must-avoid words?
   • Budget tier: Standard registration (~$10-15/yr), premium ($50-500), or aftermarket (negotiable, $500+)?
   • TLD preferences: .com required, or open to alternatives?
   • Geographic scope: Global audience (avoid language traps) or single-market?

Phase 2 — Name generation

2. Generate 15-25 candidate names using multiple techniques:
   • Descriptive: Directly describes what the product does (e.g., "CodeReview", "QuickShip").
   • Compound: Two real words merged (e.g., "MailChimp", "SalesForce").
   • Portmanteau: Blended word fragments (e.g., "Pinterest" = pin + interest, "Groupon" = group + coupon).
   • Abstract/coined: Invented words with phonetic appeal (e.g., "Zillow", "Hulu"). Ensure pronounceability.
   • Acronym: Only if the expanded form is meaningful and the acronym is memorable (e.g., "AWS"). Avoid forced acronyms.
   • Modifier + noun: Adjective/verb + core noun (e.g., "FastAPI", "BrightData").
3. For each candidate, verify basic pronounceability: read it aloud. If it requires explanation to pronounce, penalize it.

Phase 3 — Brandability scoring

4. Score each candidate on a 1-5 scale across these dimensions:

   Criterion	1 (Poor)	5 (Excellent)
   Length	>15 chars	≤8 chars
   Memorability	Forgettable, generic	Distinctive, sticky
   Spelling clarity	Multiple plausible spellings	One obvious spelling
   Pronounceability	Requires explanation	Instant, unambiguous
   Brandability	Descriptive/generic	Unique, ownable
   Domain hackability	No good TLD options	Perfect .com or clever hack

5. Compute a weighted composite score: Length (15%) + Memorability (25%) + Spelling (20%) + Pronounceability (15%) + Brandability (15%) + Domain hackability (10%).

Phase 4 — Availability checking

6. For the top 10 scored candidates, check availability:
   • WHOIS lookup: Check if the .com (and preferred TLD) is registered.
   • Registrar search: Cross-reference with a major registrar (Namecheap, Cloudflare, Google Domains) for pricing.
   • Aftermarket check: If registered, check if listed on Sedo, Afternic, Dan.com, or GoDaddy Auctions with a price.
   • Social handle check: Note availability of matching handles on GitHub, Twitter/X, and the primary social platform for the target audience.
7. Categorize each domain as: Available (standard price), Premium (registry premium), Aftermarket (listed for sale), or Taken (registered, not for sale).

Phase 5 — Trademark risk assessment

8. For the top 5 available candidates:
   • Search the USPTO TESS database for exact and phonetic matches in relevant Nice Classes.
   • Check the EUIPO TMView if the product will operate in Europe.
   • Search Google for existing businesses using the name in the same industry.
   • Flag any candidate with an exact trademark match in the same class as HIGH RISK — do not use.
   • Flag phonetic or visual similarity matches as MEDIUM RISK — needs attorney review.
9. Note: This is a pre-screen, not legal advice. Recommend professional trademark search for the final pick.

Phase 6 — TLD strategy recommendation

10. Apply TLD selection logic:
    • .com is always the default recommendation if available and affordable.
    • .io is acceptable for developer tools, APIs, and tech-focused B2B products.
    • .dev is acceptable for developer tools and open-source projects (requires HTTPS).
    • .app is acceptable for mobile-first products (requires HTTPS).
    • .co is acceptable as a .com alternative for startups, but note the Colombia confusion risk.
    • Country-code TLDs (.uk, .de, .au) are appropriate only if the business is explicitly single-market.
    • Novelty TLDs (.xyz, .ninja, .rocks) should be flagged as risky for credibility unless the brand is explicitly playful.

Decision rules

• Never recommend a name with a HIGH RISK trademark conflict, regardless of how good the brandability score is.
• .com or walk away: If the budget allows and the project is a commercial venture targeting a broad audience, strongly prefer .com. Recommend alternatives only with explicit justification.
• Spelling test: If you have to spell the domain for someone over the phone, it fails. Penalize double letters (e.g., "pressstart.com"), homophones (e.g., "write/right"), and ambiguous letter combos (e.g., "clearchoice" — is it "clear-choice" or "clerc-hoice"?).
• Hyphens are almost always wrong: Hyphens in domain names hurt memorability, look unprofessional, and are confused in speech. Only recommend if the unhyphenated form is truly unusable.
• Numbers are almost always wrong: Unless the number is part of an established brand (e.g., "7zip"), avoid them. "4u", "2go" patterns are dated.
• Renewal cost matters: Flag domains with first-year promotional pricing that jumps significantly on renewal (common with novelty TLDs).

Output requirements

Deliver all of the following as separate, clearly labeled sections:

1. Naming Brief Summary — Restated requirements and constraints as understood.
2. Candidate List — All generated names in a scored table: Name | Composite Score | Length | Memorability | Spelling | Pronounceability | Brandability | Domain Hackability.
3. Availability Report — Top 10 candidates with: Domain | TLD | Status (Available/Premium/Aftermarket/Taken) | Estimated Cost | Social Handle Availability.
4. Trademark Risk Assessment — Top 5 available candidates with: Name | USPTO Result | EUIPO Result | Web Search Result | Risk Level (Low/Medium/High).
5. Recommendation — Top 1-3 picks with rationale. Include the recommended TLD, estimated total first-year cost, and any caveats.

Anti-patterns

• Trademark-infringing names: Suggesting names confusingly similar to established brands (e.g., "Googlr", "NetFlicks"). Always run the trademark check before recommending.
• Hard-to-spell domains: Names with ambiguous spelling cost traffic and credibility. "Lyft" succeeded despite this — your client's startup probably won't.
• Ignoring renewal costs: Recommending a $0.99 first-year

  .xyz

  domain without mentioning the $12+/yr renewal that follows.
• Overvaluing cleverness: A portmanteau that requires explanation is worse than a straightforward compound word.
• Assuming .com is dead: .com still carries trust and recognition advantages for commercial ventures. Don't dismiss it because alternatives are trendier.
• Generating without constraints: Producing 50 random names without first understanding the brief. Quantity without relevance wastes everyone's time.
• Ignoring social handle conflicts: A domain is less valuable if the matching Twitter/GitHub handle is taken by an active, unrelated account.

Related skills

• business-idea-evaluation

  — Evaluate the business before naming it; naming should follow concept validation

• market-research

  — Understand the competitive landscape to avoid naming collisions

• competitor-teardown

  — Analyze how competitors named and branded themselves

• app-publishing

  — App store naming has different constraints (character limits, keyword optimization)

Failure handling

• If the user provides no project description, ask for one before generating names. Naming without context produces noise.
• If all top candidates have trademark conflicts, report this clearly and generate a second round with more abstract/coined names.
• If the user's budget is standard registration only and all good .com options are taken, explicitly present the trade-off: weaker name with .com vs stronger name with alternative TLD.
• If the user insists on a name flagged as HIGH RISK trademark, document the risk clearly and recommend they consult a trademark attorney before proceeding.