88a41bedd3
The fork shipped renamed binary/bundle but the product name "Zed" was still
shown everywhere in the UI. Rename the display name to "Joule" (tagline
"Energy-metered agentic coding") while preserving every load-bearing reference.
Display renames (105 .rs files): release_channel display_name, welcome +
onboarding + ai_onboarding, macOS app menu (About/Hide/Quit), window titles,
About panel, settings UI, notifications, update/collab messages, system specs.
Bundle display name (crates/zed/Cargo.toml) -> "Joule" so CFBundleName / the
menu-bar name and the .app are "Joule" (identifier science.transaction.AgentJoule
and the agent-joule binary are unchanged).
Docs (223 .md): product prose Zed -> Joule, fence-aware (code blocks untouched).
Embedded assets (12 JSONC): // comments only.
Legal (4 files): product -> Joule, entity "Zed Industries, Inc." -> "Transaction
Science, Inc.", domain zed.dev -> openie.dev. NOTE: these are structurally Zed's
inherited terms and need a real legal review, not just a rename.
Deliberately PRESERVED (renaming would break the app): font aliases ("Zed Plex
Sans"/".ZedMono" in text_system + assets), HTTP header names (X-Zed-Predict-*),
zed:: action ids, app/bundle identifiers (dev.zed.Zed*, Zed-Editor-* product ids),
zed.dev URLs, ZED_* env vars, crate/package names, "Zed Industries" in non-legal
attribution, and the {zed,Zed} config-dir glob.
Signed + notarized + stapled as Joule.app, installed to /Applications, verified
(Gatekeeper: Notarized Developer ID, FH93XC2VRR). Caveat: test-code string
literals were renamed too, so some `cargo test` assertions may need updating.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <[email protected]>
178 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
178 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
# Brand Voice Rubric
|
|
|
|
Score each criterion 1-5. Copy must score **4+ on ALL criteria** to pass.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 1. Technical Grounding (1-5)
|
|
|
|
Does the copy make specific, verifiable technical claims?
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
| ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| 5 | Precise technical details that can be verified (specs, architecture, measurable outcomes) |
|
|
| 4 | Concrete technical claims with clear meaning |
|
|
| 3 | Mix of specific and vague technical references |
|
|
| 2 | Mostly abstract with occasional technical terms |
|
|
| 1 | No technical substance; pure marketing language |
|
|
|
|
**Examples:**
|
|
|
|
- ✅ "Written in Rust with GPU-accelerated rendering at 120fps"
|
|
- ❌ "Blazingly fast performance that will transform your workflow"
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 2. Natural Syntax (1-5)
|
|
|
|
Does the writing flow like natural speech from a thoughtful developer?
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
| ----- | --------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| 5 | Varied sentence structure, natural rhythm, reads aloud smoothly |
|
|
| 4 | Mostly natural with minor rhythm issues |
|
|
| 3 | Some AI patterns visible but not dominant |
|
|
| 2 | Obvious structural patterns (parallel triplets, em dash chains) |
|
|
| 1 | Robotic cadence, formulaic construction throughout |
|
|
|
|
**Red flags:** Em dash overuse, "It's not X, it's Y" constructions, triple parallel lists, sentences all same length.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 3. Quiet Confidence (1-5)
|
|
|
|
Does the copy state facts without hype or emotional manipulation?
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
| ----- | -------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| 5 | Facts speak for themselves; reader draws own conclusions |
|
|
| 4 | Confident statements with minimal flourish |
|
|
| 3 | Some restraint but occasional hype creeps in |
|
|
| 2 | Frequent superlatives or emotional appeals |
|
|
| 1 | Aggressive marketing tone, telling reader how to feel |
|
|
|
|
**Examples:**
|
|
|
|
- ✅ "Joule renders every frame on the GPU. You'll notice the difference when you scroll."
|
|
- ❌ "Experience the revolutionary speed that will absolutely transform how you code!"
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 4. Developer Respect (1-5)
|
|
|
|
Does the copy treat the reader as a peer, not a prospect?
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
| ----- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| 5 | Peer-to-peer conversation; assumes technical competence |
|
|
| 4 | Respectful with appropriate technical depth |
|
|
| 3 | Slightly patronizing or oversimplified |
|
|
| 2 | Condescending explanations or forced enthusiasm |
|
|
| 1 | Treats reader as uninformed consumer to be persuaded |
|
|
|
|
**Examples:**
|
|
|
|
- ✅ "Tree-sitter provides incremental parsing, so syntax highlighting updates as you type."
|
|
- ❌ "Don't worry about the technical details — just know it's fast!"
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 5. Information Priority (1-5)
|
|
|
|
Is the most important information first?
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
| ----- | --------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| 5 | Key fact or change leads; context follows naturally |
|
|
| 4 | Important info near top with minor preamble |
|
|
| 3 | Buried lede but recoverable |
|
|
| 2 | Significant buildup before substance |
|
|
| 1 | Key information buried or missing entirely |
|
|
|
|
**Examples:**
|
|
|
|
- ✅ "Inline completions now stream token-by-token. Previously, you waited for the full response."
|
|
- ❌ "We've been thinking a lot about the developer experience, and after months of work, we're thrilled to share that..."
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 6. Specificity (1-5)
|
|
|
|
Are claims concrete and measurable?
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
| ----- | -------------------------------------- |
|
|
| 5 | Every claim is specific and verifiable |
|
|
| 4 | Mostly specific with rare abstractions |
|
|
| 3 | Mix of concrete and vague claims |
|
|
| 2 | Mostly abstract benefits |
|
|
| 1 | All claims are vague or unverifiable |
|
|
|
|
**Examples:**
|
|
|
|
- ✅ "Startup time under 100ms on M1 Macs"
|
|
- ❌ "Lightning-fast startup that respects your time"
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 7. Voice Consistency (1-5)
|
|
|
|
Does the tone remain unified throughout?
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
| ----- | ------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| 5 | Single coherent voice from start to finish |
|
|
| 4 | Minor tonal shifts that don't distract |
|
|
| 3 | Noticeable drift between sections |
|
|
| 2 | Multiple competing voices |
|
|
| 1 | Jarring tonal inconsistency |
|
|
|
|
**Check for:** Shifts between casual/formal, technical/marketing, confident/hedging.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 8. Earned Claims (1-5)
|
|
|
|
Are assertions supported or supportable?
|
|
|
|
| Score | Description |
|
|
| ----- | ------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| 5 | Every claim can be demonstrated or verified |
|
|
| 4 | Claims are reasonable and mostly verifiable |
|
|
| 3 | Some unsupported assertions |
|
|
| 2 | Multiple unverifiable superlatives |
|
|
| 1 | Bold claims with no backing |
|
|
|
|
**Examples:**
|
|
|
|
- ✅ "Built by the team behind Atom and Tree-sitter"
|
|
- ❌ "The most advanced editor ever created"
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Quick Scoring Template
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|
|
|---------------------|-------|-------|
|
|
| Technical Grounding | /5 | |
|
|
| Natural Syntax | /5 | |
|
|
| Quiet Confidence | /5 | |
|
|
| Developer Respect | /5 | |
|
|
| Information Priority| /5 | |
|
|
| Specificity | /5 | |
|
|
| Voice Consistency | /5 | |
|
|
| Earned Claims | /5 | |
|
|
| **TOTAL** | /40 | |
|
|
|
|
Pass threshold: 32/40 (all criteria 4+)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Decision Rules
|
|
|
|
- **All 4+:** Copy passes. Minor polish optional.
|
|
- **Any 3:** Rewrite flagged sections, re-score.
|
|
- **Any 2 or below:** Full reconstruction required.
|
|
- **Multiple failures:** Start fresh with new approach.
|