Does this look like one thing made on purpose — logo usage, icon language, imagery, radius and shadow DNA — audited against what the brand claims to be.
Free & open · no signup · read-only — it ends by asking · nothing leaves your machine
You are working inside this repo. Mission: judge whether this product's visual identity reads as one deliberate thing — across logo, icons, illustration, imagery, and graphic assets — and find where it drifts into a collage.
Read-only pass. Your only write is the report file.
Phase 2 sweeps the codebase through every one of these, citing file and line for each finding.
stroke widths, corner styles, fill versus outline, grid sizes: one set, or three libraries cohabiting
variants, clear space, minimum sizes, the backgrounds it appears on; the stretched and recolored sins
corner radii and elevation as a consistent signature, or per-component whims; count the distinct radii
photos and illustrations sharing a treatment (grade, style, subject) or stock-photo roulette
does the visual tone (playful, serious, technical, warm) match the copy's tone and the product's claim; cite the mismatches
app, marketing site, emails, OG cards, favicon: recognizably the same product?
SVGs optimized and consistent (viewBoxes, currentColor), raster where vector belongs, duplicate logo files quietly drifting apart
swap the logo for a competitor's: does anything else still identify this product; name the ownable graphic elements, or their absence
One structured report at the repo root — or in reports/, if you keep one — the same shape every time, ready for a teammate — or the optional Studio — to act on.
Every Goal Prompt follows the same four steps, so results are consistent and repeatable — no matter which one you run.
Gather what the brand claims.
One icon language — stroke widths, corner styles, fill versus outline, grid sizes.
Name the identity in one sentence, from evidence — what the visuals actually say today.
Create BRAND.md at repo root.
Copy it and paste it into your agent inside the repo you want checked.
Install the goal plugin once — two commands — then just type /goal:brand-coherence-audit.
/plugin marketplace add GhostlyGawd/goal-prompts/plugin install goal@goal-promptsOr install only this Goal Prompt as /goal-brand-coherence-audit:
curl -fsSL https://goal-prompts.vercel.app/install | BRIEF=59 shLet an agent fetch it mid-conversation, or pull the raw Goal Prompt by URL.
https://goal-prompts.vercel.app/raw/59.mdNothing hidden — this is the whole Goal Prompt, verbatim. Read it in a minute, edit it, or copy it as-is.
# Goal: Brand Coherence Audit You are working inside this repo. Mission: judge whether this product's visual identity reads as one deliberate thing — across logo, icons, illustration, imagery, and graphic assets — and find where it drifts into a collage. Read-only pass. Your only write is the report file. ## Phase 1 — Collect the identity - Gather what the brand claims: name, tagline, stated personality — from README, marketing pages, design docs, brand files if any exist. - Inventory the assets: logo variants, favicon, OG images, icon sets and their sources, illustrations, photography, empty-state art, email and social templates in the repo. - Note the graphic DNA in code: border radii, shadow styles, gradients — the recurring shapes that make a look. ## Phase 2 — Audit through 8 lenses 1. **One icon language** — stroke widths, corner styles, fill versus outline, grid sizes: one set, or three libraries cohabiting 2. **Logo hygiene** — variants, clear space, minimum sizes, the backgrounds it appears on; the stretched and recolored sins 3. **Radius and shadow DNA** — corner radii and elevation as a consistent signature, or per-component whims; count the distinct radii 4. **Imagery voice** — photos and illustrations sharing a treatment (grade, style, subject) or stock-photo roulette 5. **Personality match** — does the visual tone (playful, serious, technical, warm) match the copy's tone and the product's claim; cite the mismatches 6. **Cross-surface consistency** — app, marketing site, emails, OG cards, favicon: recognizably the same product? 7. **Asset hygiene** — SVGs optimized and consistent (viewBoxes, currentColor), raster where vector belongs, duplicate logo files quietly drifting apart 8. **Distinctiveness** — swap the logo for a competitor's: does anything else still identify this product; name the ownable graphic elements, or their absence ## Phase 3 — Curate - Name the identity in one sentence, from evidence — what the visuals actually say today. - Rank drifts by user-facing surface area; separate unify fixes (pick one of the three styles) from define gaps (no style was ever chosen). ## Phase 4 — Report Create `BRAND.md` at repo root: 1. **The identity, as shipped** — one honest paragraph 2. **Asset census** — logos, icons, imagery: counts, sources, drift 3. **Findings** — ranked by visibility 4. **The coherence kit** — the 5–10 decisions (radius, icon set, image treatment…) that would make it one thing Start the report with today's date. If `BRAND.md` already exists from a previous run, read it first and lead with what changed since. ## Rules - Judge what ships, not what the brand deck intended — cite files and surfaces - Consistency beats beauty; one okay style everywhere outranks three good ones - No brand surface in this repo? Say so in a one-paragraph null report and stop — a null result is a valid finding. - If a `reports/` directory exists at the repo root, write the report there instead of the root. - Before asking, present the top findings as a ranked list in plain words - Report only — end by asking which fixes to make
reports/ directory exists at the repo root, write the report there instead of the root.Where the eye actually goes versus where it should — focal points, size and weight and contrast doing real work, and the screens where everything shouts at once.
The type scale, or the lack of one — sizes, weights, line lengths and heights, font loading, and every place text is asked to do a job at the wrong size.
The palette as it actually ships — every hex in the codebase, contrast ratios computed, semantic drift named, and whether dark mode is a theme or an apology.
The spacing scale nobody wrote down — margins and paddings inventoried, grid discipline checked, alignment breaks found, and density judged screen by screen.