메뉴
Reviews a draft for statements that carry a credible risk of defamation, producing a flagged checklist of red-flag passages with a plain-language explanation of why each is potentially problematic.
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
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.
| name | libel-risk-checker |
| description | Reviews a draft for statements that carry a credible risk of defamation, producing a flagged checklist of red-flag passages with a plain-language explanation of why each is potentially problematic. |
| status | stable |
| category | editing |
| subcategory | editing |
| version | 1 |
| eval_score | 4.2 |
| tags | ["editing","legal","risk","defamation","pre-publication"] |
Reviews a draft for statements that carry a credible risk of defamation, producing a flagged checklist of red-flag passages with a plain-language explanation of why each is potentially problematic.
Required: The full draft text to be reviewed. Optional: The jurisdiction in which the piece will be published (e.g., England and Wales, United States, Australia) — different countries have different defamation standards, and naming a jurisdiction improves the relevance of the flags; the name of any individual or organisation who has been given a right of reply, and what their response was.
Draft text: "Three former employees told us that Marcus Delacroix, the finance director, had been systematically falsifying expense reports for at least two years. The company denied any wrongdoing when approached, but declined to address the specific allegations. Sources say Delacroix is also known to have a drinking problem that affects his work. His deputy, Carla Voss, is widely regarded in the industry as incompetent. The CEO confirmed that an internal audit is underway, but described it as 'routine'."
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Libel Risk Report
"had been systematically falsifying expense reports for at least two years" Flagged text: "Marcus Delacroix, the finance director, had been systematically falsifying expense reports for at least two years." Concern: This is stated as established fact, not allegation. If it cannot be proven to the civil standard of proof, this sentence is high-risk. The denial from the company is noted but the specific allegation is not attributed to named sources — only "three former employees." Risk level: High Suggested action: Rewrite as allegation rather than fact ("three former employees allege that…"). Confirm whether sources are willing to be named. If not, consider whether anonymous sourcing is sufficient to support publication. Seek legal advice before publishing.
"Sources say Delacroix is also known to have a drinking problem that affects his work." Concern: This is a serious personal allegation — implying unfitness for his role — attributed to unnamed "sources." It is not connected to any documented incident, formal complaint, or on-the-record account. In England and Wales, truth is a full defence to defamation, but the burden of proof lies with the publisher. If this cannot be substantiated, it should not be published. Risk level: High Suggested action: Remove unless you have documented evidence (medical records, disciplinary records, on-the-record eyewitness accounts). If there is supporting evidence, consult a lawyer about how to publish it safely.
"His deputy, Carla Voss, is widely regarded in the industry as incompetent." Concern: "Incompetent" is a factual-sounding claim capable of damaging a professional reputation. "Widely regarded" implies general consensus but provides no evidence for it. Carla Voss does not appear to have been approached for comment, which weakens any public-interest defence. Risk level: Medium Suggested action: Either remove this sentence, or provide the evidential basis (e.g., cite specific failures, name sources), and give Voss a right of reply. If this is meant as editorial opinion, it must be clearly framed as such.
"The company denied any wrongdoing when approached, but declined to address the specific allegations." Concern: Not a defamation risk in itself — publishing a denial is standard practice. However, the company's specific denial should be quoted accurately, not paraphrased. If you have a written denial, quote it directly. If their response was verbal, note that. Risk level: Low Suggested action: Replace with a direct quote from the company's response, or note clearly whether it was written or verbal.
"described it as 'routine'" Concern: If the CEO's use of the word "routine" is in quotation marks, confirm this is a verbatim quote, not a paraphrase. Misquoting a named source in a context that implies a cover-up creates an additional legal exposure beyond defamation. Risk level: Low Suggested action: Verify the quote against your notes or recording. If it is a paraphrase, remove the quotation marks.
Summary Total flags: 5 Risk breakdown: 2 High · 1 Medium · 2 Low Overall recommendation: Do not publish in current form. The two High-risk passages — the expense-report allegation stated as fact, and the unsubstantiated personal allegation about drinking — require either stronger on-the-record sourcing or removal before this piece is ready for legal review. Send to a media lawyer with the High and Medium flags highlighted.
This report is an editorial aid only. It identifies passages that warrant closer scrutiny. It is not a legal opinion and does not constitute advice from a qualified solicitor or attorney. Always consult a media lawyer before publishing material that carries legal risk.
