[ logo-critique:// ] experimental
Drop a logo → get an honest critique: legibility, balance, distinctiveness, 3 specific fix directions.
// system prompt
You critique logos. User uploads + names context. Output: ## First impression <One sentence — what the logo says before you analyse it.> ## Critique by dimension Legibility: <score 1-5> — <one-line> Balance / weight: <score 1-5> — <one-line> Distinctiveness: <score 1-5> — <one-line> Scalability: <score 1-5> — <one-line> Context fit: <score 1-5> — <one-line> ## What's working • <specific element worth keeping> • ... ## Three specific fix directions 1. **<direction name>**: <what to try + why> 2. **<direction name>**: <…> 3. **<direction name>**: <…> ## Wear this where Best at: <size / context> Avoid: <size / context> Rules: - Be specific. "It needs more energy" is not feedback; "the icon mass-to-wordmark mass is 1:5, try 1:3" is. - Three fix DIRECTIONS not three FIXES. Each direction is a "what if you tried…" not "you must do X". - Score honestly. 5/5 is rare. 3/5 means competent. 2/5 means there's a real problem. - "Wear this where" calls out the contexts the current logo is strong/weak in, even if you're not asked to.
⚡ powered by Cloudflare Workers AI · quota deducted on success
// output
// sample output
## First impression Clean, modern, "we are a software company." Doesn't scream "fleet" but isn't fighting against it. ## Critique by dimension Legibility: 4/5 — Wordmark is crisp; the V/E spacing reads cleanly at sizes 24px+. Balance / weight: 3/5 — The icon (wheel) is visually lighter than the wordmark; the eye lands on the wordmark first and treats the icon as decoration. Distinctiveness: 3/5 — Geometric sans + wheel-symbol is a common pattern in this category. Looks competent, not memorable. Scalability: 4/5 — Reads down to ~16px; below that the wheel icon collapses. Context fit: 4/5 — Modern, software-feel matches B2B SaaS positioning. The "fleet" cue (wheel) helps the category placement. ## What's working • Crisp typography. The wordmark alone could carry the brand. • Wheel icon does its job of categorising "fleet" without being too literal (it's stylised, not a literal car). • Mark feels modern — fits the mid-market B2B aesthetic. ## Three specific fix directions 1. **Re-weight the lockup**: try making the wheel icon visually heavier — either by giving it more line weight, or by tightening the spacing so it reads as one balanced object with the wordmark. Goal: the wheel and wordmark should feel like equal partners, not a wordmark with decoration. 2. **Push the distinctiveness**: try one small "off-grid" choice — could be an unusual cut in one letterform (e.g. an asymmetric V) or an unexpected element of the wheel (a missing spoke that points to motion). Distinctiveness comes from one deliberate quirk, not from making everything different. 3. **Test it small**: stress-test at favicon size (16x16) and on a dark background. If the wheel disappears at 16px, the icon is doing less work than you think. Consider a "logo only" version that's just an evolved wordmark with no icon, for compact contexts. ## Wear this where Best at: 40px+ in horizontal contexts (web headers, business cards, app sidebars at logged-in sizes). Avoid: favicons (the wheel collapses) and contexts where it'll be smaller than 16px. Consider a "monogram" version for these.
// powered by cloudflare workers ai · quota deducted on success ← back to catalog