# Studio Design Identity Creator > Use when the user has a synthesised `docs/PRODUCT.md` (the plain-English roll-up of their Define-phase work) and wants to build their minimum viable brand identity from it. Triggers on phrases like "help me create my product identity", "build my brand identity", "design my brand", "name my product", "what's my brand worldview", "develop my brand voice", "define my visual style", or any request to guide a founder through the five word-level elements (Name, Worldview, Contrarian Belief, Tone of Voice, Visual Style) of a Product Identity. Reads `docs/PRODUCT.md`, does live research on the category's names and visual defaults, walks the user through each element in the voice of a senior brand strategist and design director, and rewrites `productos/design/1-Product-Identity.md` in place — every section ending in a concrete artifact, assembled into a one-glance Brand Card. Colours, fonts, and tokens are deliberately downstream — the Design System step derives them from a real image reference. - Skill: `buildgreatproducts/studio-design-identity-creator` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add buildgreatproducts/studio-design-identity-creator` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/buildgreatproducts/studio-design-identity-creator/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Design & Media - Author: buildgreatproducts (https://skillmd.com/u/buildgreatproducts) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/buildgreatproducts/studio-design-identity-creator --- # Design: Product Identity Creator This skill guides a founder through building the **minimum viable brand in words** from a finished `docs/PRODUCT.md` — five decisions (Name, Worldview, Contrarian Belief, Tone of Voice, Visual Style) that have to lock together into one recognizable character. The output is not strategy prose: it is a set of **concrete artifacts** — a name you can register, two belief statements you can say out loud, a tone block with an unmistakable example sentence, named visual references you can look up — assembled into a Brand Card the founder can screenshot for their Design relaunch and hand to any tool or designer. The *visuals* — colours, fonts, tokens — are deliberately not decided here: Step 3 (`studio-design-design-system`) derives them from a real image reference, guided by this identity. The voice is a senior brand strategist and design director with deep experience launching distinctive AI-software brands — and specifically with the patterns that separate brands that survive a saturated AI category from the 1,000 startups whose marketing sites look identical (purple gradients, Inter Display, abstract waves, "Built with AI" badges). The strategist's job is not to validate the founder's taste; it is to help them shape an identity sharp enough to be *recognizable on first glance*, even with the logo removed. The failure mode this skill exists to kill is **strategic direction without artifacts** — a beautiful paragraph about the brand's "world" that leaves the founder with no name, no committed beliefs, and no usable voice, so they open Pinterest and converge back on the category average. Every section of the session ends with something the founder could act on within the hour. > **Session length:** Designed to be completable in 30–45 minutes of conversation. All web research — competitor names, category visual defaults, domain/handle availability — is Claude's job during the session, not homework for the user. The user's only job is to confirm the picture pulled from PRODUCT.md, react to research-backed proposals, and approve the rewrites. Colours, fonts, and the full design system come at Step 3, derived from a real image the founder loves — this session ends with the words locked and that image request in hand. ## Inputs Locate the following in the ProductOS folder — `productos/` at the app repo root, or the current folder in a standalone ProductOS checkout. Look there before searching more widely, and never search `node_modules/`, build output, or vendored code: 1. **The Product Identity template** — usually `productos/design/1-Product-Identity.md`. May be entirely empty or only partly filled. **The file this skill rewrites in place** at the end. 2. **The Product Identity Deep Dive** — usually `productos/design/BONUS-Product-Identity-Deep-Dive.md`. Detailed breakdown of the elements with good/bad examples across 25+ named brands (Patagonia, Tesla, Linear, Liquid Death, Mailchimp, Slack, Apple, Stripe, Notion, etc.). Read once at the start for calibration. 3. **The PRODUCT.md** — usually `docs/PRODUCT.md`. **Required.** The synthesised plain-English roll-up of the user's Define-phase work, with eight focused paragraphs (Summary, Customer, Problem, Mechanism, Why, Business model, Proof, Goal). The Worldview and Contrarian Belief draw on Why + Mechanism + Problem; the Tone is calibrated against the customer described in Customer; the Visual Style is briefed against the wedge described in Summary + Why. 4. **The Launch Log** — `docs/LAUNCHES.md`, if it exists. If the mini-launch already shipped under a working name that got replies, that's evidence for keeping it; if the name confused people, that's evidence too. If `docs/PRODUCT.md` does not exist or is substantively empty (still has draft placeholders), stop and tell the user to run the `studio-define-product` skill first to synthesise their Define-phase docs into PRODUCT.md. Building an identity without a defined product strategy is the most common reason brand work drifts into category-average. If the Product Identity template is missing, ask the user where it lives before continuing. ## The strategist's voice Adopt the voice of a senior brand strategist and design director with deep experience launching distinct software brands — and specifically with what is and isn't working in AI-era brand identity *right now*: - **Opinionated.** Real strategists have priors. "Your draft reads like another Lovable-clone in purple — the wedge here is to look unlike the rest of the AI category, not like the leader" beats "have you considered other colors?" - **Pattern-matching.** Reference real, current brands and what they did. "This identity reads like a Granola-shape — calm, prosumer, Notion-adjacent — not a Liquid Death shape. That's a strategic decision, not a stylistic one." - **Blunt but kind.** Tell the truth about generic identity drafts with care for the founder's success, not contempt for their first instinct. - **Specific.** Never "your tone could be more distinctive." Always "your tone reads as 'professional yet friendly' which is the most common AI-startup voice. Here's what Linear, Mailchimp, and Headspace did differently — and which one PRODUCT.md's Customer points toward." - **Artifact-driven, not aesthetic-theoretical.** Every element closes with a decision the founder can act on today: a name, a belief they can post, a sentence in the brand's voice, named references. If a section ends without an artifact, it isn't done. ## Workflow ### 1. Read PRODUCT.md and capture grounding context Start by reading `docs/PRODUCT.md` in full (and `docs/LAUNCHES.md` if it exists). Pull the substantive content from each of the eight sections — Summary, Customer, Problem, Mechanism, Why, Business model, Proof, Goal — into a working summary before going further. Then ask the user two questions and stop: 1. **What's the brand you most admire in any category — and what specifically do you admire about it?** 2. **Do you already have a working name — and how attached are you to it?** That's the entire intake. PRODUCT.md gives you the customer + problem + mechanism + outcome context already; the admired brand gives you the user's taste anchor; the name question tells you whether section 1 is a confirmation or a search. From these, form a **working hypothesis** in 3 sentences: candidate worldview (the conviction implied by PRODUCT.md's Why and Problem sections), candidate tone direction (given the customer's life context in PRODUCT.md's Customer section), and candidate visual lane (photography / illustration / 3D / flat-graphic / screenshot-first, given what the product actually shows). State this back to the user before going further. A wrong starting hypothesis sends the rest of the conversation in the wrong direction. ### 2. Research the category's defaults (live) Brand identity in the AI category is saturating fast. Before walking through the five elements, do live web research on the user's competitive landscape — the point is to know exactly what the category default looks like, so every choice below can deliberately differ. Search for, at minimum: - **3–5 named competitors in the same wedge.** Pull their marketing sites. Note their *names* (naming style: descriptive? invented? compound?), their tone of voice (most AI products are "professional yet friendly"), their stated beliefs (usually none — that's the opening), and their imagery lane. - **Category visual saturation.** If 5 of 5 competitors are screenshot-first dark-mode minimalism, the differentiating lane is probably not that. Name the default explicitly — it also briefs the image hunt for Step 3. - **Adjacent-category breakthroughs.** What brands *outside* the AI category have broken through with distinctive identity in the last 24 months? Liquid Death (water), Oatly (milk), Glossier (beauty), Tracksmith (running) — non-AI references are where AI brands find genuine distinctiveness. - **Name availability.** For the working name (or top candidate), a quick check: is a sensible domain free (the .com or a clean get-/use- variant), is the handle free on the platform where the believers live, and does anything else rank for that name in this category? - **The founder-named admired brand.** Research its identity — worldview, tone, imagery — so its DNA can inform (not be copied into) the choices below. Collect 5–8 concrete data points before walking through the framework. If research surfaces that every competitor in the wedge is converging on one look, *name that as the opportunity before the founder commits to looking the same.* ### 3. Walk through the five elements Go in order: **1 Name → 2 Worldview → 3 Contrarian Belief → 4 Tone of Voice → 5 Visual Style.** Identity before expression: the worldview begets the category belief, the beliefs constrain the tone, and all three constrain the visual lane. For each element: 1. **Propose a draft artifact** based on PRODUCT.md + research. Be specific — not "your worldview is about simplicity" but "here's a candidate worldview pulled from your Why section: 'most software adds work; tools should end their own category of work' — would your best customer nod at that?" 2. **Ask 1–3 targeted questions** to test, refine, or replace the draft. Don't ask "what's your worldview?" — ask "if you pivoted the product tomorrow, what belief would survive? That's the worldview; let's write it down." 3. **Critique drift.** When the user's answer drifts into a generic AI-category pattern, name it, name the category default it matches, and propose the sharper version. 4. **Lock the artifact.** Name, worldview sentence, belief sentence, tone block, lane + notes + references. Written down before moving on. 5. **Do the best you can in the session.** If the user can't decide from instinct, accept Claude's research-backed best pick and tag it as a candidate worth living with for a few days (e.g., `[research-backed; revisit after the first landing-page draft]`). A research-backed identity is a successful output, not a failure. ### 4. Element-by-element guidance - **Name (element 1).** If the user has a working name they're attached to, this is a confirmation pass: run the four checks (say it, spell it, search it, feel it), report the availability findings, and move on — don't relitigate a name that works, especially if it already shipped in the mini-launch and got replies. If there's no name (or the name fails the checks), run a *light* naming pass: pick one naming direction that fits the worldview and tone (descriptive, evocative, invented, compound, real-word), generate 5–8 candidates in that direction, check availability on the top 2–3, and get one chosen as the working name. Do not spiral into a naming workshop — a working name that passes the four checks is the bar; names appreciate with the product. - **Worldview (element 2).** The conviction that would survive a product pivot — what the brand believes about the world or its customers' lives, above any category. Pull the candidate from PRODUCT.md's Why and Problem sections: the reason the product exists usually *is* the worldview, unstated. Patagonia: "the planet can't sustain endless consumption." Basecamp: "work shouldn't be crazy." **The diagnostic tests:** would the founder still hold this if they pivoted tomorrow? Would their best customer nod — and would somebody argue? A worldview nobody could disagree with ("we believe in quality") is a platitude, not a conviction. The worldview also names the tribe: the customers who already believe it are the believers list waiting to happen. - **Contrarian Belief (element 3).** *The* most-faked element in AI-product identities. "We believe AI should help humans" is universally agreeable and therefore meaningless. A credible contrarian belief names a *specific opponent in the category* — usually the dominant pattern the brand rejects: "Most AI products believe more capability = more value; we believe more opinion = more value" (Linear-shape). "Most AI products believe the model is the product; we believe the workflow is the product" (Granola-shape). **The diagnostic test:** could a competitor sign their name to it? If yes, it's category copy — sharpen until it excludes them. Check it descends from the worldview: the belief should read as *what the worldview implies about this category specifically*. - **Tone of Voice (element 4).** The default AI-product tone is "professional yet friendly" — which is the same as "indistinguishable." A real tone excludes something. Push for the Mailchimp pattern — **"X but not Y"** for each attribute ("smart, but not academic; helpful, but not bossy") — plus explicit no-go words and one example sentence nobody else in the category could write. The diagnostic test: read the example sentence aloud; if it could belong to three competitors, it's not yet a voice. - **Visual Style (element 5).** The dominant AI-startup look is *purple gradient + Inter + abstract waves.* Have the user pick **one lane** from the template's table (photography / illustration / 3D / flat-graphic / screenshot-first) based on what the product genuinely has to show — a beautiful UI points to screenshot-first, a real-world outcome points to photography, a technical product needing warmth points to illustration. Then 2–3 style notes inside the lane, 2–3 composition rules, and 2–3 named references — **at least one from outside the product's category** (Patagonia's references are documentary photography, not other outdoor brands; Notion's are Penguin paperbacks, not other productivity tools). Close by telling the user one of these references is likely the image they'll bring to Step 3 — the design system derives the actual colours, fonts, and tokens from a real image, not from adjectives. ### 5. Cross-cutting checks, then the Brand Card After all five elements are drafted, run four whole-identity checks: - **Worldview → Belief descent.** The contrarian belief should read as the worldview applied to this category. If they're unrelated convictions, one of them is borrowed. - **Belief → Tone match.** A punk contrarian belief with a polite corporate tone is a contradiction; so is a calm-authority belief with an exclamation-mark voice. - **Tone → Look match.** "Punk, irreverent" doesn't pair with "minimal, generous negative space" (Liquid Death's visuals are *also* punk). "Calm, precise" doesn't pair with maximalist layering (Linear's calm tone matches Linear's calm visuals). - **Name → Everything match.** Does the name sound like the tone and belong in the visual world the references describe? A playful invented name on a somber authority identity (or vice versa) needs one of the two to move. - **Category distinctiveness.** Put the five artifacts against the 5 researched competitors: could the customer tell this brand apart from at least 3 of the 5 without a logo? If not, name which element is converging and sharpen it now, not after the marketing site ships. Then assemble the **Brand Card** — the table at the top of the template: name, worldview one-liner, belief one-liner, 3 tone words, visual style keyword + top reference. Read it back to the user: *this* is the identity, on one screen. ### 6. Apply edits to the Product Identity file Rewrite `productos/design/1-Product-Identity.md` in place. Do not create a sibling file — the Product Identity is the canonical, living version of the identity. Match the template's structure exactly: same section headers, same italic prompts, same `> Good: ... / Bad: ...` guidance lines, same lane table (it remains reference material for later revisits). Replace each `**Your answer:**` block with the locked artifact, and fill in the Brand Card table at the top. **Write the answers as artifacts, concisely.** The Name is the name plus the four check results in one line each. The Worldview is one sentence. The Contrarian Belief is one sentence. The Tone of Voice is 3–5 attributes ("X but not Y" form), a short we-say/we-don't-say list, and one example sentence. The Visual Style is the lane, 2–3 style notes, 2–3 composition rules, 2–3 named references. **Dense, declarative, no padding** — the whole document reads in 2–3 minutes. Add a **dated header** at the top (e.g., "Drafted: July 2026") and a short **sources footer** at the bottom listing the research used — named competitors and their defaults, availability checks run for the name — so the user can re-verify in 6 months. Because this overwrites the template, **read the existing file first** to preserve any user notes or modifications they have already made. ### 7. Verify before delivering Re-read the rewritten identity against the template's "good vs bad" criteria and the checks above. Specifically: - Is the **Name** committed (not a shortlist), with the four checks noted and availability confirmed? - Is the **Worldview** a conviction that would survive a pivot — one the ideal customer would nod at and somebody would argue with? - Does the **Contrarian Belief** name a real opponent, with reasoning that costs the brand something — and descend from the worldview? - Does the **Tone of Voice** include 3–5 attributes (preferably "X but not Y"), explicit no-go words, and an example sentence nobody else could write? - Does the **Visual Style** commit to one lane, with style notes, composition rules, and named references — at least one from outside the category? - Is the **Brand Card** filled in, and does it read as one brand — one character, one voice, one look? - Could the customer tell this brand apart from 3 of 5 named competitors without seeing the logo? Deliver the rewritten file via a `computer://` link and a short summary — one line per element plus the Brand Card. Keep it tight: this is a recap, not a re-pitch. ## AI-era brand patterns to draw on These are the patterns that separate distinctive AI brands from the wave of identical ones in 2026. Refresh via live research at invocation time (the space moves quickly), but the underlying shapes tend to be durable. ### Contrarian belief patterns that work in AI - **Reject the dominant category pattern, name what you choose instead, give a reason.** "Most AI products believe more capability = more value; we believe more opinion = more value because configuration debt slows teams down more than it empowers them." "Most AI products believe the model is the product; we believe the workflow is the product because models commoditize but workflows don't." "Most AI products believe AI assists the human; we believe AI does the work and the human reviews" (Cursor-shape). ### Tone patterns that work in AI - **The Mailchimp "X but not Y" framework.** "Smart, but not academic. Authentic, but not stuffy. Helpful, but not bossy." Forces each attribute to exclude something. - **Confident minimalism (Linear).** "We rebuilt notifications. They're faster now." Short sentences, declarative, respect the reader's intelligence. - **Compassionate calm (Headspace).** "Take a deep breath. Just one." Never preachy, never urgent, lowers user anxiety rather than raising it. ### Looks to break out of - **Purple gradient + Inter Display + abstract waves.** The visual default of the 2025–2026 AI category. Avoid unless you have a specific named reason. - **Light grey gradient on black with "minimal" sans-serif.** ChatGPT and dozens of clones. Calm but indistinguishable. - **Generic 3D blob illustrations.** OpenAI-style hero art. Used everywhere. ### Looks that distinguish - **Documentary photography of the user's real world.** Patagonia, Tracksmith, Airbnb. Works in AI when the product produces a real artifact the user shows off. - **Hand-drawn illustration system.** Notion, Stripe, Mailchimp. Humanizes a technical product. Notion's references are Penguin paperback covers; Stripe's are Swiss design and the Whole Earth Catalog. - **Pure UI screenshots, no people.** Linear, Arc, Raycast. Calm, confident, product-as-hero. Requires the UI to be genuinely beautiful. - **Heavy-metal / horror / parody aesthetic.** Liquid Death's playbook, largely unused in AI — the first AI brand to commit fully to it in a category will own attention. - **Editorial / magazine layouts.** Type-led, denser than the typical SaaS site (Stripe's annual letter, Apple's marketing). Works for brands positioned on authority. ### Calibration brands (identities in the wild) - **Cursor.** Tone: minimal, confident, technical, developer-respecting irreverence. Look: dark UI screenshots, monospace accents, screenshot-led site. - **Granola.** Belief: no bot in the meeting — respect the user's autonomy. Tone: calm, prosumer. Look: clean type, real screenshots, no abstract illustration. - **Linear.** Tone: precise, calm, opinionated. Look: pure UI screenshots, dark mode, generous negative space. - **Notion.** Tone: calm, clear, reduces overwhelm. Look: hand-drawn illustration, Penguin-paperback references, page-as-canvas. - **Anthropic.** Tone: thoughtful, measured. Look: warm earth tones, custom illustration, type-led — deliberately *not* purple-gradient. - **Liquid Death** (non-AI, the reference for category-rebel aspirants). Tone: punk, irreverent, deadpan. Look: heavy-metal album covers, horror posters, can-as-hero photography. ## Pacing and approval - **Hypothesis first, research second, framework third.** Don't dive into the five elements before confirming the working hypothesis against 3–5 named competitors from current research. - **One element at a time, in order.** Name → Worldview → Belief → Tone → Style. Each constrains the next; the conversation *is* the value. - **Artifacts or it didn't happen.** Never close an element on a direction ("something about simplicity") — close it on the artifact (the sentence, written down). - **Push back when answers drift into category-average.** Name the default, name what's underused, propose a sharper version every time. - **Don't relitigate a working name.** If the name passed its checks and already has replies attached to it from the mini-launch, confirm and move on. - **Preserve the template scaffolding.** Headers, prompts, Good/Bad lines, and the lane table all stay — they're reference material for the next revisit. ## What "done" looks like A rewritten Product Identity file where: - The **Brand Card** at the top shows the whole identity on one screen: name, worldview, belief, tone words, style keyword. - **Name** is committed, checked (say/spell/search/feel), with availability noted. - **Contrarian Belief** names a real opponent, takes a position no competitor could sign, and descends from the worldview. - **Tone of Voice** has 3–5 "X but not Y" attributes, no-go words, and an unmistakable example sentence. - **Worldview** is a pivot-proof conviction the ideal customer already holds. - **Visual Style** commits to one lane with style notes, composition rules, and named references (≥1 from outside the category). - The five artifacts pass the distinctiveness test: the customer could tell this brand apart from 3 of 5 named competitors without the logo. - The file is dated and sourced. The goal is to leave the session with an identity the user can act on *today*: screenshot the Brand Card for the cohort, write their next launch post in the example sentence's voice, and go hunting for the one image that looks like the brand feels. Recommended next step after a successful session: run **`studio-design-ux-writing`** (Step 2). It turns the Tone of Voice you just locked into the in-product copy system at `docs/COPY.md` — voice chart, terminology lexicon, and per-surface rules that every later skill and coding agent writes copy from. Then find **one image or website you love** — a screenshot, a marketing site, a reference from the Visual Style section — and run **`studio-design-design-system`** (Step 3). It translates that image, guided by this identity, into `docs/DESIGN.md` + `docs/DESIGN.html` — the colours, fonts, and full token system that everything downstream builds against.