| name | research-source-evaluation |
| description | When searching for authoritative sources for skills or validating existing source links. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| tokens | ~400 |
| confidence | high |
| sources | ["https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content","https://www.w3.org/TR/"] |
| last_validated | 2025-01-10T00:00:00.000Z |
| next_review | 2025-01-24T00:00:00.000Z |
| tags | ["research","sources","validation","skills"] |
When to Use
When searching for authoritative sources for skills or validating existing source links.
Patterns
Source Tiers (Credibility)
Tier 1 (Highest):
- Official docs (react.dev, supabase.com/docs)
- RFCs, W3C specs
- GitHub source code
Tier 2:
- Official blogs (vercel.com/blog)
- Release notes, changelogs
- Core team members' posts
Tier 3:
- Reputable tech companies (AWS, Google, etc.)
- Well-known authors (Kent C. Dodds, Dan Abramov)
Tier 4:
- Stack Overflow (high votes, recent)
- GitHub issues (official repos)
Tier 5 (Lowest):
- Personal blogs, tutorials
- Medium articles (verify author)
Search Strategy
"[technology] site:docs.*.com OR site:*.dev"
"[technology] [version] documentation"
"[technology] best practices 2024 2025"
"[technology] migration guide OR breaking changes"
Source Validation Checklist
✅ Domain is official project domain
✅ Content dated within 12 months
✅ Author is maintainer/team member
✅ Links to source code or spec
✅ No outdated version warnings
Anti-Patterns
- Using StackOverflow answers >2 years old
- Blog posts without checking official docs
- Ignoring version numbers in examples
- Trusting AI-generated content without verification
Verification Checklist