Izveidot kontuCreate account
‹ All playbooks
Create a brand kit a supplier can use

growth.brand-kit·version 1.0.0·draft1 to verify

Create a brand kit a supplier can use

A supplier who has never worked with the company can produce an on-brand flyer, post or banner from the kit alone, without asking a question.

RūdolfsBrand Designerruns itProfile ›
Whenon request — the owner or marketing asks for a brand kit — new company, rebrand, or the old assets live in someone's inbox
Who actsthe agent acts after approval
Time2–4 h active across two sessions; owner decision between them
Countryany country
Sign in to run thisThis playbook opens inside Brain Club. Sign in to read and run it.

When to use

The company needs a single, self-service description of how it looks, so that a designer, print shop or agency can produce material without a meeting. Not for launching a website on that brand — use growth.launch-website once the kit exists. Not for deciding what to say in a post — use growth.social-post-weekly; the kit governs how it looks, not what it says. If the trigger is a rebrand, do this playbook and then retire the old assets in S8.

Before you start

  • The owner has said whether this is a new brand or a cleanup of an existing one. A cleanup keeps the current logo and colours; a new brand may change them.
  • Every logo file, font file and colour note anyone can find has been collected into one folder — including from old invoices, business cards and the current website.
  • It is known who the kit is for first: one named supplier or all future suppliers.

What a run requires2

  • Approval · S3 · ownerthe run stops until a named person records the decision
  • Approval · S7 · ownerthe run stops until a named person records the decision

Any step can wait until a date and reopens by itself; every closed step leaves evidence (a note, a link, a number).

The trail8 steps

  1. Inventory what existsagent

    List every logo variant, font, colour value and template found, with where it came from and where it is used today (site header, invoice, signage, social avatar).

    Done when the inventory is a table in the brand module and each row says "keep", "replace" or "unsure".

  2. Find the inconsistenciesagent

    Compare the variants: different blues on the invoice and the website, a low-resolution logo used by a supplier, a font nobody can name.

    Done when each inconsistency is written next to the inventory row it belongs to, with a screenshot as proof.

  3. Decide the directionownerneeds approval · owner

    Approval · S3 · owner — the run stops until a named person records the decision

    Present the inventory with a recommendation: which logo is canonical, which colours are the brand colours, keep or replace each font.

    Done when the owner has named the canonical logo, the colour set and the font decision in writing.

  4. Build the core kitagent

    In the brand module, assemble: the logo in the formats suppliers actually need (vector for print, fixed-size PNGs for web and social, one version for dark backgrounds); each colour with hex and CMYK values; each font with its licence status and where a supplier may obtain it legally; one page of usage rules (clear space, minimum size, what never to do).

    Done when every file opens and every value is written down, not "the same as the logo".

    ⛔ A font with unknown licence terms is not "fine for now" — mark it and flag it to the owner before any supplier uses it.

  5. Build three templatesagent

    Produce fill-in templates for the three uses named in the inputs — typically one social post, one document or invoice header, one print or banner layout — each using only kit assets.

    Done when each template renders with placeholder text and carries a comment naming the kit version it uses.

  6. Test on a real artefactagent

    Give one template to a person who did not build the kit (or an agent acting as one) with the task: produce a finished social post using only the kit. Record every question they ask.

    Done when the artefact is produced and each question is either answered by fixing the kit or written down as a known gap.

  7. Approve the kitownerneeds approval · owner

    Approval · S7 · owner — the run stops until a named person records the decision

    Show the kit, the test artefact and the open gaps.

    Done when the owner approves the kit as version 1 and names anything deferred to a later version.

  8. Publish, link and retireagent

    Mark the kit as the current version in the brand module; link it from the company profile; add tasks to replace the off-brand assets found in S2 (old avatars, outdated templates at suppliers); send the kit link to the supplier it was built for.

    Done when a person outside the team can find the kit from the company profile in under a minute.

Checks — how we know it worked

  • Read back the colour values from the kit against the canonical logo file — they match in hex and CMYK.
  • The test artefact from S6 was produced with zero questions beyond the recorded ones, and each recorded question is resolved or explicitly deferred in S7.
  • Every font in the kit has a licence status written next to it, not blank.
  • A supplier given only the kit link can find logo, colours, fonts and rules without asking where anything is.

If it goes wrong

SymptomResponse
The owner cannot choose between two directions in S3Do not average them; build both as one-page mock-ups, show in context (an invoice and a post), ask for one name.
The canonical logo exists only as a small PNGSay so in S3 before building; a vector must be redrawn or recovered from the original designer before the kit can ship.
The test in S6 produces a wrong-looking artefactThe kit is missing a rule, not the tester is wrong — fix the kit and re-test before S7.
A supplier is already using an off-brand assetAdd it to the S8 replacement task list; do not quietly let both versions circulate.
Font licence turns out to forbid the planned useSwap to the documented fallback font in the kit before any supplier work ships; flag the swap to the owner.

What each step leaves behind

  1. S1the inventory is a table in the brand module and each row says "keep", "replace" or "unsure".
  2. S2each inconsistency is written next to the inventory row it belongs to, with a screenshot as proof.
  3. S3the owner has named the canonical logo, the colour set and the font decision in writing.
  4. S4every file opens and every value is written down, not "the same as the logo".
  5. S5each template renders with placeholder text and carries a comment naming the kit version it uses.
  6. S6the artefact is produced and each question is either answered by fixing the kit or written down as a known gap.
  7. S7the owner approves the kit as version 1 and names anything deferred to a later version.
  8. S8a person outside the team can find the kit from the company profile in under a minute.

Evidence to keep

The inventory table with keep/replace decisions · the owner's S3 and S7 choices (who, when, what was deferred) · the S6 test artefact and the question list · the kit version number and its link · the task list of off-brand assets to replace.

How this playbook improves

After every 5 runs ask: did any supplier still ask a brand question the kit should have answered, and which section was missing? Did any asset in the S8 replacement list survive longer than a month? Did the font licence check in S4 ever get skipped? A new version adds the missing section or tightens the step that let the asset survive, and says so in its change note.