메뉴
Writes precise, publication-standard footnotes for data claims in a finished article — citing sources accurately, explaining how figures were derived where necessary, and flagging any caveats that qualified readers need to know.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
| name | data-footnote-writer |
| description | Writes precise, publication-standard footnotes for data claims in a finished article — citing sources accurately, explaining how figures were derived where necessary, and flagging any caveats that qualified readers need to know. |
| status | stable |
| category | data-journalism |
| subcategory | publishing |
| version | 1 |
| eval_score | 4.4 |
| tags | ["footnotes","sourcing","data journalism","publication standards","accuracy"] |
Writes precise, publication-standard footnotes for data claims in a finished article — citing sources accurately, explaining how figures were derived where necessary, and flagging any caveats that qualified readers need to know.
Required: The data claims from the article that need footnotes (the exact sentences or figures). The source for each claim — dataset name, institution, publication date, and URL or file reference. Whether the figure was taken directly from the source or derived through analysis. Optional: The publication format (academic, journalism, policy report) and its citation style if known; any methodological notes that should appear in the footnote rather than the body text.
Numbered footnotes, one per data claim, formatted as: source information first, then derivation note if applicable, then caveat if applicable. Each footnote is one to three sentences. Consistent citation style throughout. At the end, a complete list of all sources cited.
Article claims requiring footnotes:
"North Coastal Authority had the longest median orthopaedic waiting time among all 47 regional health authorities in Q3 2024, at 68 days." Source: National Health Statistics Agency quarterly waiting time dataset, Q3 2024 release, downloaded February 2026 from [agency open data portal]. Figure taken directly from the dataset.
"The gap between the highest and lowest-waiting authority has widened by 57% since 2019 — from a ratio of 1.4 to 2.2." Source: Same dataset, but this figure was calculated by the journalist: ratio derived by dividing North Coastal median (68 days) by Central Metro median (31 days) for Q3 2024, compared to the equivalent ratio for Q3 2019 (47 days / 34 days = 1.38).
"One in four patients in North Coastal Authority waited more than 18 weeks for orthopaedic treatment in Q3 2024." Source: Same dataset. Calculated as: patients waiting over 18 weeks (3,100) divided by total waiting (12,400) = 25%.
Footnotes
¹ National Health Statistics Agency, Quarterly Hospital Waiting Time Statistics, Q3 2024, published December 2024. Available at: [agency open data portal]. Figure cited is the median waiting time for orthopaedic treatment at North Coastal Authority, as published in the dataset.
² National Health Statistics Agency, Quarterly Hospital Waiting Time Statistics, Q3 2019 and Q3 2024 (same source as note 1). The ratio cited is calculated by dividing the median waiting time for the highest-waiting authority (North Coastal: 68 days in Q3 2024; 47 days in Q3 2019) by the median for the lowest-waiting authority (Central Metro: 31 days in Q3 2024; 34 days in Q3 2019). Ratios: Q3 2024 = 2.19; Q3 2019 = 1.38. Percentage increase in gap: 59%. Figure rounded to 57% in body text due to rounding of underlying medians; see full dataset for unrounded values.
³ National Health Statistics Agency, Quarterly Hospital Waiting Time Statistics, Q3 2024 (same source as note 1). Calculated as patients waiting more than 18 weeks for orthopaedic treatment at North Coastal Authority (3,100) as a proportion of total orthopaedic patients waiting at that authority (12,400): 25.0%.
Sources cited
Generates the complete set of metadata fields — tags, categories, keywords, slug, and summary — needed to publish a piece of content in a content management system, ready to copy and paste into each field.
Takes a finished piece of content and produces a complete, archive-ready metadata record — including descriptive tags, subject classifications, rights notes, and an archival summary — for entry into a content management or digital archive system.
Drafts a GDPR compliance note for a specific piece of journalistic content or data collection activity — documenting the lawful basis for processing personal data, what data is held, how long it is retained, and who has access.
Reviews the details of a specific image and flags potential rights clearance issues before publication, identifying which permissions you likely need and which questions to bring to your legal or picture desk.
Reviews a story brief, draft article, or broadcast script and flags potential legal risks — including defamation, privacy, contempt of court, and data protection — so you know what to check before publication.
Drafts a formal, professional request letter to a music rights holder asking for permission to use a track in a specific media production under defined terms.
