I ran into a recurring problem when working with LLMs and coding agents: it is surprisingly hard to consistently communicate a product’s brand.
When we rebranded BrainGrid, I wanted a simple, repeatable way to tell any LLM or coding agent what the brand is, without re-explaining it in prompts every time.
Together, they describe tone, voice, terminology, naming conventions, and visual guidelines in a way that is easy for both humans and LLMs to consume.
I tested this by having Claude Code update the branding across our docs site: https://docs.braingrid.ai/
. The experience was smooth and required very little back and forth. The agent had the context it needed up front.
This made me wonder if we should treat brand context the same way we treat things like README files or API specs.
Would it make sense to standardize something like /brand.json or /brand.txt as a common convention for LLM-assisted development?
Curious if others have run into the same issue, or are solving brand consistency with AI in a different way.
acossta•1mo ago
When we rebranded BrainGrid, I wanted a simple, repeatable way to tell any LLM or coding agent what the brand is, without re-explaining it in prompts every time.
I ended up creating two files:
https://www.braingrid.ai/brand.json
https://www.braingrid.ai/brand.txt
Together, they describe tone, voice, terminology, naming conventions, and visual guidelines in a way that is easy for both humans and LLMs to consume.
I tested this by having Claude Code update the branding across our docs site: https://docs.braingrid.ai/ . The experience was smooth and required very little back and forth. The agent had the context it needed up front.
This made me wonder if we should treat brand context the same way we treat things like README files or API specs.
Would it make sense to standardize something like /brand.json or /brand.txt as a common convention for LLM-assisted development?
Curious if others have run into the same issue, or are solving brand consistency with AI in a different way.