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]>
6.4 KiB
6.4 KiB
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.