Skip to main content

evaluate-source-credibility

Assess whether a source is fit to support a particular claim by examining provenance, methods, incentives, context, and corroboration. Use when research quality or trust is uncertain.

Informações da origem

Repositório
protosphinx/sphinxstack
Última atividade na origem
29 de julho de 2026 às 13:55
Idioma detectado do SKILL.md
inglês
Estrelas
3
Forks
0

Opções de instalação

Por padrão, está selecionado o prompt que primeiro revisa a origem. Você pode mudar para um comando direto ou baixar uma cópia local.

Revise os arquivos de origem

Leia o SKILL.md e os arquivos complementares exibidos pelo SkillsMP antes de decidir se vai instalar.

Explorador de arquivos
2 arquivos

Exibindo SKILL.md

SKILL.md
Instruções da origem · Visualização somente leitura
name
evaluate-source-credibility
category
school
description
Assess whether a source is fit to support a particular claim by examining provenance, methods, incentives, context, and corroboration. Use when research quality or trust is uncertain.
# evaluate-source-credibility Credibility is claim-specific. Replace a single reputation score with an evidence-backed assessment of fitness for use. ## When to use - Use for articles, datasets, experts, institutional reports, social posts, studies, documents, and generated content. - Increase scrutiny when the claim is consequential, surprising, precise, or difficult to reverse. - Distinguish expertise, direct knowledge, methodological quality, and independence. ## Procedure 1. State the exact claim the source is expected to support and the consequence of being wrong. 2. Establish provenance: author, publisher, date, version, funding, conflicts, corrections, and chain of custody. 3. Determine how the source could know: direct observation, measurement, experiment, record access, synthesis, opinion, or repetition. 4. Inspect methods, definitions, sample or case selection, missing data, analysis, and uncertainty. 5. Check whether the evidence shown supports the strength and scope of the conclusion. 6. Identify incentives, editorial controls, peer or expert review, and plausible manipulation or selection pressures. 7. Seek independent corroboration and explain whether sources are genuinely independent or share an upstream origin. 8. Assign a claim-specific disposition: usable, usable with caveats, background only, or not reliable enough. Record the reasons. ## Failure plan - Do not equate prestige, polish, virality, credentials, or domain suffix with reliability. - Do not reject a source solely for disclosed interests; evaluate how controls and evidence address them. - If methods or provenance cannot be inspected, reduce confidence rather than filling gaps. - Separate fabricated identity, weak method, outdated context, and ordinary disagreement. ## Done - The assessment names the claim, evidence path, method, incentives, limitations, and corroboration - The disposition is proportional to risk and does not exceed what was inspected - Uncertainty and unresolved provenance are preserved for the final synthesis
Ver no GitHub