# Logo Design > Design or evaluate a logo against the SAD bar — Simple, Appropriate, Distinct — always judged in context. Use when designing a new mark, refining one, or assessing whether an existing logo is any good. Triggers on 'logo,' 'wordmark,' 'brandmark,' 'mark,' 'monogram,' 'favicon/app icon,' 'is our logo good,' 'redesign our logo,' 'logo critique,' or 'logo concepts.' Reads the brand's emotional target… - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-zstvns-design-skills-logo-design` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [zstvns](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/zstvns) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [zstvns](https://github.com/zstvns) - **Source:** https://github.com/zstvns/design-skills/tree/main/skills/logo-design ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-zstvns-design-skills-logo-design ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Logo Design You design and evaluate logos. A logo is the most distilled expression of a brand — it has to do the most work with the least. Read `design-principles` and `.agents/brand.md` before you judge or draw anything. > **A logo is never judged on its own.** Every part of the assessment happens in a context: against the competition, against the feeling the brand must produce, and against every place the mark has to live. Pull the brand context and the competitor set *first* — without them you cannot actually evaluate a mark, only react to it. ## The Bar: SAD A good logo is **S**imple, **A**ppropriate, **D**istinct. The acronym is easy; the discipline is that **each dimension is only judgeable against a specific context.** Skip the context and you're just expressing taste. ### Simple — judged across *every implementation* Simple doesn't mean minimal or sparse. It means **one idea that survives every reduction**, drawn the same way everywhere. The baseline test is **black and white**: a logo must work with all *color* removed. If it needs its color, a gradient, or a glow to read, it isn't simple — color is the last layer, not a crutch. **"Black and white" does not mean solid 100% black, though** — opacity steps and tints of a single value (a mark built from 30/60/100% of one hue) are legitimate and still pass, because the mark is *monochrome*; it isn't leaning on color to read. The failure is dependence on *hue/gradient*, not the use of tints. Then verify across the whole implementation set, never just the hero lockup: - Does it hold at a 16px favicon? In a circle-cropped social avatar? A rounded-square app icon? Reversed on dark? Single-color? Etched, embroidered, foil-stamped? - Is it the **same** construction in all of them — or did someone quietly draw a *different* simplified version to survive the favicon? If the mark needs a second drawing to work small, it isn't simple yet. - Is there a **single source of truth**? Multiple versions in the wild with inconsistent light source, shadow direction, or orientation is a Simple failure — the mark has no defined construction. Establish the canonical drawing and the rules around it. - Judge the **wordmark/lockup**, not just the mark glyph. Inconsistent weight or size between words (e.g. "Cash Flow" bold + "Portal" light) raises cognitive load and can imply an unintended sub-brand. Unify the lockup, or drop the trailing word and reserve it for the legal/URL name. - Lay the implementations out side by side (see [references/sad-checklist.md](references/sad-checklist.md)). Consistent + instantly legible everywhere = simple. - **Recognition failure caps Simple.** If the mark misreads as something else at small sizes — a mascot that reads as a different animal in the favicon, a "G" that reads as a "C" — that's a Simple failure, not a footnote. Flag it and let it move the score; an unrecognizable-at-small-size mark isn't doing its job. This is why gathering the logo in *all* its forms (the `brand` skill does this) is non-negotiable: simplicity is an observation across the set, not a property of one file. ### Appropriate — judged against the *core feelings* A logo can be beautiful and wrong. Appropriate means it produces the feelings the brand is built to produce — the **Emotional Target** in `.agents/brand.md` — for *this* audience, in *this* category. - A playful, bouncing mark is wrong for a brand whose job is to feel like a vault; a severe, serious mark is wrong for a kids' product. - You cannot judge appropriateness without the core feelings. If `.agents/brand.md` has no Emotional Target, stop and define it (`brand-strategy`) — otherwise "appropriate" collapses into "do I like it." ### Distinct — judged against the *direct competition* Distinctiveness only exists relative to the field. - Put the mark on a shelf with the **direct competitors' logos** and the category's visual conventions. Does it stand out, or dissolve into the set? - **Compare silhouettes**, not just details — a triangle/arrow mark nearly identical in silhouette to a high-profile competitor's (e.g. Vercel's) is a direct recognition conflict, even if the execution differs. - Check it against famous and well-known logos too — unintentional resemblance is a liability, not a coincidence. - The real test: cover the name. Would the audience know it's *them* and not a competitor? - A mark that executes the category default (see `design-principles` → Coherent Is Not the Same as Good) is competent, not distinct. Name that when you see it. - **Run the shelf for real.** If you haven't placed the mark beside the actual competitor logos and compared silhouettes, you have *not* assessed Distinct — don't infer it from the mark alone. Distinct is **independent of Simple**: passing black & white tells you nothing about distinctiveness. A clean, attractive, B&W-legible mark that shares a silhouette with a high-profile competitor (e.g. Vercel's triangle) **fails** — and because **SAD is not averaged, one failed criterion sinks the whole logo.** Never report a colliding mark as "passes SAD cleanly." ## Assess (get) vs. Design (make) **Assessing an existing mark** — the live, common case: 1. Make sure you're judging the **current** mark — take it from the live navigation bar, not a favicon, OG image, or press kit (those are often stale). Then gather it in *every* form, plus the competitor set (the `brand` skill's Step 1 handles this). 2. **Confirm whether there's a symbol at all** — inspect the favicon, app icon, and full lockup, not just the nav wordmark. Brands routinely pair a wordmark with a glyph (or carry a motif inside the mark); missing it produces a false "wordmark-only, no mark" verdict. Don't penalize a wordmark for being a wordmark, either — a wordmark can be genuinely distinct. 3. Run SAD-in-context and report **per dimension, with the evidence** — the implementation grid for Simple, the emotional-target check for Appropriate, the competitor shelf for Distinct. 4. Be honest about the spread: most marks pass **Simple**, many pass **Appropriate**, and far fewer pass **Distinct**. "Distinct" is where good logos are separated from competent ones — don't soften it. 5. Write the verdict into the **Logo** section of `.agents/brand.md`. **The mark is equity, not scripture.** Don't preserve a weak logo just because it exists. If the creative direction is shifting significantly (Revolution or serious Evolution), the logo is on the table too — say so plainly rather than protecting a mark that fails SAD. **Designing a new mark** — new brand, or the existing one fails the bar: 1. Work from `.agents/brand.md`: the Emotional Target and muses are the brief; the competitor set defines what "distinct" requires. 2. **Find the thematic idea first.** The strongest marks *distill a brand concept into one form* — a derivative of a bigger story pared to a single mark (e.g. three data points joined by a circle = a closed-loop system; the Roman standard = command). The mark should *mean* something traceable to the brand, not just decorate. A mark with no thematic root reads as arbitrary — the "no thematic element" failure. Pull it from the muses/abstraction (`creative-direction`) or the brand's own story. 3. **Generate sketches broadly across the three families** — **typographic / wordmark** (letterforms and their expression, graphic motifs *in* the letters, or letters fused with a pictorial/abstract element — explore the **full wordmark**, e.g. the whole name, not just the initial letter), **pictorial** (a stylized representation, Apple-style), **abstract** (a non-literal mark that evokes a feeling, Nike-style). Three rules the sketch phase lives or dies by: - **Generate, don't hand-draw.** Produce the options with a generative tool — see [references/generative-tooling.md](references/generative-tooling.md). An agent hand-authoring SVG primitives cannot construct a usable mark; the sketches must come from a generative surface (or, absent one, be labeled low-fidelity). - **Show every option as a mark + wordmark lockup**, so orientation reads and the mark is judged the way it will actually ride. - **Don't force one per family.** Pick the ones that actually work — they can all be abstract. Family is a lens for coverage, not a quota. Show the client "the ugly" — many options — then your **top three plus alternatives, with your recommendation**. Don't marry the first idea. 4. Resolve in **black and white first.** If it doesn't work in one value, color won't save it — color comes after the form is right. If the client is hesitant, show B&W before finalizing. 5. **Construct it properly.** The mark's vector comes from a generative tool, not typed-out `` coordinates; the wordmark is set in a **licensed face and outlined** — never *generated* (generative type garbles the letterforms). A designer then refines to the bar: geometric harmony (golden-ratio circles/squares) corrected by eye, unified paths, hand-tracked type, an optically balanced **and centered** mark-to-wordmark lockup (**no tagline in the lockup** — the wordmark stands alone). This is where geometric cohesion, type quality, and ratios are won or lost: [references/logo-construction.md](references/logo-construction.md) and [references/generative-tooling.md](references/generative-tooling.md). 6. Build the **full system**: primary lockup, secondary/stacked (only if used), the standalone mark, clear space, minimum size, reversed and single-color variants. 7. Test against SAD *and* the implementation grid before calling it done. For a **redesign or refinement**, diagnose the *move* first — the gap from weak to strong is usually one structural fix, not "add polish": resolve an ambiguous glyph into one clear idea; **kill a weak mark and make the wordmark itself distinctive**; give fragile hairline type real weight; swap a literal/cliché metaphor for a fresher one tied to positioning; never ship a system default font. Full patterns with worked before→after cases: [references/logo-fixes.md](references/logo-fixes.md). **An agent hand-drawing SVG cannot construct a logo — and a rough mark is not a resolved mark.** Agent-authored / "parametric" SVG comes out rough every time: uneven curve tension, awkward optical weight, near-misses that misread (a disc-with-wedge reading as Pac-Man). The fix is not more polish — it's the **right tool**: generate the mark with a generative vector tool ([references/generative-tooling.md](references/generative-tooling.md)) and hand the vector to a designer to resolve. Whatever you put in front of the client, say what it is — "this is a rough cut / a wireframe stand-in; the construction still needs a real vector pass" — rather than scoring it bulletproof. Presenting an unresolved mark as finished is how the whole logo ships at a quality the brand can't use. ## Present it: the identity presentation A mark is sold (and sign-off is won) in context, not on a white artboard. Present the **identity presentation**: the sketches and creative direction that led here, the inspiration, the mark itself, its **black-and-white** form, and — the load-bearing part — the mark **applied**: business cards, signage, billboards, social, ephemera (hats, shirts), a sub-brand side by side if there is one, and **on the shelf next to the competitors**. Show the application of everything and *make the case objectively* — "this stands out in your market" — with the competitor lineup right there to prove it. This is where Distinct stops being an assertion and becomes visible. ## Deliver the Logo as ONE Locked Element The single most common way a good mark gets wrecked downstream is that consumers **rebuild** it — a designer (or an agent) places the symbol, sets the wordmark themselves, picks their own gap, tints it to match an accent, and drops it in a rounded box. Prevent that by delivering the logo as a **single, self-contained, locked asset**, not a kit of parts: - **One file per lockup.** The mark and the wordmark are locked together inside the asset in fixed proportion and fixed relationship. A consumer places *the logo*; they never assemble it. Provide the standalone symbol as its own separate asset for the cases that genuinely need it (avatar, app icon, favicon) — but it is a *named variant*, not an invitation to re-lockup. - **The wordmark ships as outlined vector**, so it can never re-render in a substitute face on a machine without the licensed font. - **Correct artwork bounds.** The `viewBox` / artboard must contain the whole drawing with its intended clear space — **no clipping**. A mark that arrives cropped by its own frame will be cropped everywhere it's used. Verify by rendering each delivered file standalone at large *and* small size. - **Color is fixed and enumerated.** Ship the exact variants — full-color, inverse, all-white, all-black, grayscale — and state plainly that **recoloring the logo is misuse**. Don't leave the mark color-inheriting or undefined such that a consumer's CSS decides it; if a version is meant to take a single color, deliver it *as* the one-color variant with the permitted colors named. - **Never drop the name or swap the face.** The logotype is part of the mark. A lockup missing the wordmark, set in the wrong typeface, or filled with placeholder/AI-slop copy is not the logo. - **Never invent medium-specific ornament.** Lines, frames, or decorations added "just for the business card / the deck" that aren't in the brand system are off-brand *by definition* — applying an identity means placing the system's elements, not adding new ones. - **State the invariants next to the files:** minimum size, clear space, permitted variants, and an explicit misuse list — no recoloring, no boxing/containing, no cropping, no re-spacing or rebuilding the lockup, no stretching, no effects. And when the mark stands alone (e.g. dead-center on a card), *actually center it*. **The governing principle: the logo behaves identically in every medium.** Web, print, deck, social, signage, app icon — same asset, same proportions, same relationship, same colors. If it looks or behaves differently on a new surface, the identity has been broken, not adapted. Layout, print safe-zones/bleed, and deck-vs-web composition live in `collateral-design`; logo-design guarantees only that the mark itself stays **locked and on-system** wherever it lands. ## Output & delivery Write the **Logo** section of `.agents/brand.md`: lockups, the mark, clear space, minimum size, color/reversed variants, **misuse** — and, for an assessment, the SAD verdict with the evidence behind each dimension. **Also append the Logo section of `.agents/design.md`** (the living record — see `creative-direction` → design-doc-template.md): the same spec with the fuller rationale — construction/geometry notes, why the mark answers the Emotional Target, file locations — dated. `brand.md` carries the distilled rules; `design.md` carries the record. ### Write the locked assets where the other skills will find them A logo recorded only as prose can't be *applied* — the next skill has nothing to place, so it rebuilds the mark and wrecks it. So **emit real files to a canonical path** and register them in the context docs: ``` .agents/assets/logo/ logo-lockup.svg # primary — icon + outlined logotype, ONE locked element logo-icon.svg # the mark alone logo-lockup-inverse.svg # icon holds its colour, logotype flips (dark grounds) logo-lockup-black.svg logo-lockup-white.svg logo-lockup-gray.svg avatar.svg # square, icon centred app-icon.svg # rounded square raster/ # PNG + JPEG of each, for surfaces that can't take SVG ``` Then record those **exact paths** in the Logo section of both `.agents/design.md` and `.agents/brand.md`. Downstream skills — `web-design`, `collateral-design`, `motion-design` — **reference and place these files**; they never redraw, re-space, recolour, crop, box, or … ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [zstvns](https://github.com/zstvns) - **Source:** [zstvns/design-skills](https://github.com/zstvns/design-skills) - **License:** MIT Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-zstvns-design-skills-logo-design - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/zstvns - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.