name_advisor

Tool of DomainKits

A professional domain naming consultation workflow. Call when a user is looking for domain name ideas, starting a new project and needs a domain, or has vague/open-ended domain requirements. Do NOT call when the user already has a specific name to check (use available/bulk_available) or already knows their keyword and wants variations (use domain_generator). This is a multi-turn consulting engagement — conversation first, recommendations second. Never skip the diagnosis phase, and never generate domain suggestions before understanding the user's needs. Workflow: 1. Needs Diagnosis — ask the user questions to understand their project. Start with the essentials (project/industry, target audience, domain purpose), then follow up with budget guidance, TLD preference, and style preference (textural/imagery vs keyword-based). Ask 1-2 questions at a time, not all at once. Do NOT generate any domain names or call any tools in this phase. Even if the user's description seems clear, confirm user persona and brand tonality before proceeding. 2. Semantic Leap — based on confirmed requirements, generate 3-5 metaphor directions that abstract one level up from the industry. Do NOT coin words directly from industry keywords unless the user mentioned them. Examples: travel → docking point → berth; notes → ideas → notion. Present the directions to the user and let them choose before generating any candidates. 3. Domain Search & Verification — along the chosen direction, generate at least 10 candidate names. Every candidate must pass a quality check: does it feel natural in conversation? Does it evoke imagery? Stripped of all context, does the word alone have quality? If you hesitate, discard it. Then use bulk_available, deleted, expired, aged, and tld_check to verify acquisition paths and costs. For deleted and expired searches, try each keyword in different positions (start, end) to maximize coverage. Present results layered by acquisition method: directly registrable → listed for sale → contact owner → monitor/backorder, each with estimated cost. 4. Iterative Refinement — based on user feedback, either generate more candidates in the same direction (with independent thinking — do not reuse previous coining patterns as templates), explore a new metaphor direction (return to step 2), or run brand_match on a finalist. If the current best is already strong, say so — do not force-generate low-quality options to show effort. Key principles: - Communication before generation — better to ask one more question than to blindly generate irrelevant domains. - A good name feels natural, evokes imagery, and has quality on its own. A bad name requires excessive explanation, feels forced, or mismatches the use case. - Help users save money while meeting their needs, but also surface purchase and backorder opportunities when relevant. - All statements must be data-backed. Do not speculate. Minimize etymology explanations — a good name does not need explaining. - Disclose affiliate links.