--- 📊 Original Quality Score: 39% (v-1) — heuristic estimate, not a precise measurement Breakdown: Completeness 3/30, Clarity 5/20, Realism 10/20, Safety 20/20, Specificity 1/10 = 39/100 (0-49% Needs major work | 50-74% Basic, gaps exist | 75-89% Good, minor gaps | 90-99% Professional | 100% Ready to send) Requester Profile: Novice — the request uses generic, high-level language ("something modern and clean") with no industry terminology, format specs, or process awareness typical of an experienced buyer. Domain: Universal (no mark type — wordmark, emblem, abstract, mascot, or refresh — is indicated) Readiness Check: - Goal: Missing — "no supporting text found" (doesn't say if this is a new brand or a refresh, or what the mark should accomplish) - Expected Output: Missing — "no supporting text found" (no file formats, concept count, or revision count specified) - Success Criteria: Missing — "no supporting text found" - Context: Missing — "no supporting text found" (no industry, brand personality, or competitor context — "my business" is undefined) - Constraints: Partial — "something modern and clean" (a style preference is given, but no colors, typography, use cases, or budget) - Target Audience: Missing — "no supporting text found" 🔒 Safety Review: - Behavior-altering attempt: Missing — no instruction-like or tool-directing content found - PII exposure: Not Applicable — no personal or confidential data appears in the request - Unflagged trademark/IP risk: Not Applicable — no existing brand, symbol, or named designer is referenced ⚠️ Risks (ranked by severity): High: Risk: No deliverable format specified. Evidence: "can you send some options." Impact: Designer may deliver raster-only files or an unclear number of concepts, causing rework or dispute over what was owed. Medium: Risk: No industry or brand context. Evidence: "for my business." Impact: Concepts may miss the mark entirely on tone/personality, wasting a full round of revisions. Medium: Risk: No success criteria or use cases named. Evidence: "something modern and clean." Impact: Designer can't validate the mark works at small sizes or on dark backgrounds before delivery, risking late-stage rework. Low: Risk: No budget or timeline given. Evidence: "need a logo for my business." Impact: Scope and pricing can't be estimated, risking mismatched expectations at proposal stage. 💡 Recommendations: 🚨 Critical: None — no safety-critical gaps found. High: Specify deliverable format (vector source files vs. raster-only), number of initial concepts, and revision rounds included. Medium: Name the industry, brand personality, and any competitors to differentiate from. Medium: State where the logo will be used (app icon, signage, letterhead, etc.) so legibility and scalability can be validated. Low: Provide a budget range and timeline to set realistic scope expectations. ✅ Optimized Request: I need a logo for my business (assumption: treating this as a new brand identity rather than a refresh, since no prior logo or rebrand context was mentioned). The style should be modern and clean. (assumption: industry/business type not specified — designer should request this before starting concept work, as it materially affects direction.) (assumption: brand personality and any competitors to differentiate from are not specified — designer should confirm these before starting.) Please provide vector source files (AI, EPS, and SVG) rather than raster-only delivery (assumption: vector delivery is standard professional practice and was not explicitly excluded). Please include 3 initial concepts with 2 rounds of revisions (assumption: a common baseline scope, since no concept or revision count was stated — confirm with client before finalizing pricing). Deliverables should include a monochrome/single-color version and a reversed version for use on dark backgrounds (assumption: standard deliverable set, not stated in the original request). The final mark should remain legible at small sizes such as a favicon or app icon, function clearly on both light and dark backgrounds, and scale without loss of detail, in addition to matching the intended brand personality (assumption: standard success criteria for a professional logo, not stated in the original request). (assumption: target audience/end customers not specified — designer should request this, as it affects tone and visual approach.) (assumption: color preferences, typography preferences, specific use cases such as signage or letterhead, and budget/timeline were not stated — designer should confirm these before scoping.) 📊 Improved Quality Score: 64% (v-2) Breakdown: Completeness 5/30, Clarity 18/20, Realism 15/20, Safety 20/20, Specificity 6/10 = 64/100 Score Comparison: Improvement: +25 points — clarity and specificity rose sharply because the request now has a defined structure, standard deliverables, and named success criteria, but Completeness stays low since almost every substantive field (goal, context, constraints, audience) is filled with assumptions rather than real client input — only the requester can supply those specifics. --- ℹ️ This tool audits and improves the wording and completeness of the request — it doesn't verify trademark clearance, brand registrability, or legal availability of any resulting mark; a professional trademark search remains the user's responsibility. Scores reflect a structured heuristic, not a precise measurement; wording and scores may vary slightly between runs. Built for Claude Sonnet 5; other AI models, providers, and versions are untested. Use at your own discretion. This tool is not intended as a sole safeguard against attempts to alter its behavior for critical systems. ❓ A few quick questions that would raise this above 90% — the Optimized Request above is ready to use as-is: ❓ Q1: What industry is your business in, and how would you describe its personality (e.g., playful, premium, technical, friendly)? ❓ Q2: Who is your target audience, and where will the logo primarily be used (app icon, storefront sign, website, print)? ❓ Q3: Do you have a budget range and timeline in mind, and any colors or competitors you'd like to avoid resembling? 💡 Want to take this further? Explore this seller's PromptBase profile for related prompt generators and auditors that may help you build or refine prompts for this and other domains, to a professional, production-ready standard.