Kitana

An AI evaluator that reviews creative assets against a brand kit and returns scored, evidence-led findings.

Client
Kitana
Prototype A demo of the interface on sample data. Read the brand score, open the annotated assets and browse the review history. Open in a new tab ↗

Visit Kitana

Brand review is usually slow, subjective and hard to scale. Teams need feedback that is specific enough to improve the asset, consistent enough to compare over time and grounded enough to earn a designer’s trust.

I lead product design for Kitana: the product framing, the evaluation rubric, the interaction architecture and the interface.

The model

Kitana translates brand guidance into five review dimensions: color, typography, logo, layout and overall coherence. Each review pairs a simple score with visible evidence. The system supports judgment instead of pretending to replace it.

A review in progress, then its results.
While a review runs, the sidebar tracks it from any page.

The same evaluation model works in the product, in team channels and through an MCP interface used by AI tools.

The Review history tab in Kitana Lite: a compliance summary, a trend chart across twelve reviews, category scores and a list of past reviews
The Review history tab, from a demo of the production interface on sample data.

Review history turns individual checks into a view of quality over time. You can compare runs, filter by category and open any past review.

A Slack channel where the Kitana app answers with a brand compliance summary and its time-series report for August

The review travels to where creative teams already coordinate. In Slack, Kitana posts the score and a time-series report into the channel.

Kitana connected to an AI assistant through MCP

After we built the tool, we realised people would want to use it with their design agents. The MCP server lets an agent check its own output against the brand and improve it, without filling its context window with the whole brand system.

The launch identity gives a technical evaluation product a distinct voice.

Evaluation

A score is only useful if the system sees the asset correctly. So I am building an evaluation suite in four steps, each one feeding the next.

Photo Label sets the ground truth. I mark what is in each brand photo: a named box for every object, an outline of the main subject and the reading order of each ad template. The tool drafts a cut-out, and a draft only counts once I correct it and confirm it.

Vision Bake-off tests vision model configurations against that ground truth. It compares what production sees today with production plus specialist models, and scores how well each setup fills the gaps, such as logos, buttons and subject cut-outs.

The Photo Label tool: a product photo with a named product box and an outline of the main subject, next to a panel for objects and the main subject
A Vision Bake-off report comparing production alone with production plus specialist models across text, logo, shapes, cut-out and relationships

Fixture Factory makes synthetic visual designs from the first two steps. Each ad is built as a web page, so the exact position of every element is known. Each one gets one planted mistake of a known size, then production’s real extraction runs on the picture. The first 60 ads are built, and the factory is designed to scale to about 2,000.

Admin Eval puts it all together. It runs the full production pipeline on our corpus of 694 real assets and on the fixtures, and shows what Kitana sees next to the answer key, so I can correct a box or an alignment call in place.

The Fixture Factory review: a synthetic skincare ad with the answer key boxes and Kitana's boxes drawn over it, and the planted mistake described in a side panel
The Admin Eval perception view: a keyboard ad with text, photo and logo boxes, and a summary of what Kitana's full pipeline sees, with its flagged problems

The score starts the review. The evidence makes it useful.

Next project Epic Explorations