Produces a structured brief identifying financial, professional, and relational conflicts of interest for sources or stakeholders, with editorial handling recommendations.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/autopunk-media-skills:conflict-of-interest-briefThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Produces a structured brief identifying the potential financial, professional, and relational conflicts of interest a source or stakeholder may have — and recommending what to disclose, what to investigate further, and how to handle the source editorially.
Produces a structured brief identifying the potential financial, professional, and relational conflicts of interest a source or stakeholder may have — and recommending what to disclose, what to investigate further, and how to handle the source editorially.
Required: Name or role of the source (a category is fine if a name is not available). The specific claim, statement, or position they are putting forward. The topic or sector the story covers.
Optional: Known employer, institutional affiliation, or funding source. Any previous public statements or positions this person or organisation has taken. Industry or regulatory context.
A structured brief of approximately 450–600 words. Four sections: Conflict Categories to Investigate, Investigation Checklist, Materiality Assessment, and Editorial Handling. Written in plain editorial language. The checklist is numbered with specific questions, not general advice. Closes with a ready-to-use draft disclosure line. Tone is factual and non-accusatory — this skill identifies potential conflicts, not confirmed wrongdoing.
Source: A cardiologist commenting on the results of a large clinical trial comparing two blood-pressure medications. The doctor is a professor at a university medical school and is quoted saying the new drug represents "a significant advance" with "a strong safety profile." Topic: Health journalism piece on the trial results, intended for a general audience. Known information: The trial was funded by the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the new drug.
Conflict Categories to Investigate
Four categories of potential conflict apply here:
Investigation Checklist
Search the cardiologist's name in any applicable national or regional physician payment transparency database. Look for payments from the manufacturing company in the three years prior to and including the trial publication.
Check the trial's published paper — particularly the "Conflicts of Interest" or "Disclosures" section — for the cardiologist's name as a named author, investigator, or acknowledged contributor.
Search the cardiologist's institutional profile and recent publications for any co-authored work with the trial's lead investigators.
Review the cardiologist's recent conference presentations and invited lectures. Medical conference programmes often list sponsors, which can surface paid speaking relationships not captured in payment databases.
Ask the cardiologist directly: "Do you have any financial relationship with the company that funded this trial, or with any competitor?" Request a written disclosure.
Check whether the university's institutional disclosure policy requires faculty to report consultancy income, and whether any relevant disclosure is on file.
Materiality Assessment
The trial funding by the manufacturer is directly material to the cardiologist's comment, which endorses that manufacturer's product. Even if the cardiologist has no personal financial relationship, readers are entitled to know that the trial being described was industry-funded — this is standard disclosure in health journalism.
If the cardiologist is found to have received payments from the manufacturer: their comment cannot be presented as independent expert opinion. A second source with no industry relationship is required before publication.
If no direct financial relationship is found: the trial's funding source must still be disclosed in the piece, and the cardiologist's institutional affiliation must be stated. The absence of a personal conflict does not mean the framing is conflict-free.
Editorial Handling
A second independent expert — one with no disclosed relationship to either the manufacturer or the trial investigators — should comment on the results. This is the standard for health reporting on industry-funded trials.
The cardiologist can remain a named source if their conflict (if any) is disclosed and their comment is framed accurately.
Draft disclosure line (if personal financial relationship is confirmed): "[Name] has received [consulting fees / research funding / speaking fees — specify] from [Company Name]. [He/She/They] was not involved in the trial."
Draft disclosure line (if no personal conflict is found): "The trial was funded by [Company Name], the manufacturer of [drug name]. [Expert name] has no disclosed financial relationship with the company."
npx claudepluginhub ur-grue/autopunk-media-skills --plugin autopunk-media-skillsProduces a structured pre-interview research brief on a source, covering background, biases, conflicts of interest, and suggested interview questions.
Extracts and verifies factual claims from PR copy or journalistic drafts, providing citations and warning on low certainty. Use before sending pitches or press releases.
Plans and writes long-form investigative journalism pieces with document analysis, source development, and multi-stage verification.