Assesses a source's expertise, track record, conflicts of interest, and corroboration needs for claims in a draft. Use when deciding how to weigh or qualify a source's testimony before publication.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/autopunk-media-skills:source-credibility-briefThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Assesses the credibility of a source whose claims appear in a draft — expertise, track record, conflicts of interest, and the corroboration needed before publication.
Assesses the credibility of a source whose claims appear in a draft — expertise, track record, conflicts of interest, and the corroboration needed before publication.
Required: The source's name, role or title, and the specific claims they are making in the article Optional: The source's employer or institutional affiliation; any known background on the source (publications, testimony, prior interviews); how the claim was communicated (on-record interview, background, leaked document, official statement); the story context
Structured brief, 450–650 words. Sections: Expertise Assessment, Track Record, Conflicts of Interest, Corroboration Recommendation, and Follow-Up Questions. Closes with a one-sentence Editorial Verdict summarizing the overall weight the source's testimony should carry. Neutral, analytical register — no editorializing about the source's character. Output ends with a "Next Step" note: the single most important corroboration action to take first, and whether statistics-fact-checker or claim-verification-checklist should be run on the wider draft.
For every credibility risk identified — whether under Expertise, Track Record, or Conflicts of Interest — the brief produces specific follow-up questions the reporter should ask either of the source directly, of an independent corroborating expert, or of the source's institution. Questions are drawn from these standard patterns by risk type:
Methodology vagueness in expertise
Scope creep beyond core expertise
Track record concerns (prior corrections, retractions, or inconsistencies)
Institutional or financial conflict of interest
Advocacy alignment vs. neutral expertise
Single-source quantitative claims
Anonymous or background sourcing
For each risk, the brief should select the 2–4 questions from the relevant pattern that map most directly to the specific concern. Questions should be tailored with the source's actual claims, organization name, and study citations rather than left generic.
Source: Dr. Priya Anand, founding director of the Center for Digital Wellness, a nonprofit focused on reducing screen time in children Claims in article: "Adolescents who use social media more than three hours per day show measurable cognitive decline in a range of executive function tests" and "Our research shows a 40 percent increase in anxiety diagnoses among heavy social media users compared to non-users" Story context: Feature on social media regulation targeting minors
Source Credibility Brief — Dr. Priya Anand, Center for Digital Wellness
Expertise Assessment
Dr. Anand holds a PhD in developmental psychology and has published in peer-reviewed journals on adolescent media consumption. Her expertise is genuine in the domain of child development and screen behavior. However, the specific claims about "measurable cognitive decline" and "executive function tests" are neuropsychological claims — confirm whether her published research uses standardized neuropsychological assessment tools (e.g., NIH Toolbox, CANTAB) or self-report instruments. Self-report studies of screen time and self-report measures of cognitive function are methodologically weaker than objective testing; if Anand's research relies on both, the "measurable" characterization may overstate the certainty of her findings.
Track Record
Anand is cited frequently in technology and health reporting. In two prior articles (verify exact sources), her statistics have been reproduced accurately. Her organization's research is primarily funded by foundation grants, not industry, which reduces one common source of track-record concern. Her public commentary has been consistent with her published research, with no identified instances of her claims being corrected or retracted.
Conflicts of Interest
The Center for Digital Wellness has an institutional mission that aligns with the story's narrative — the organization was founded to advocate for reducing adolescent screen time. This is an advocacy position, not a neutral research position. Anand may be accurate and her research may be sound, but her institutional stance makes her a motivated expert, not a neutral one. The story should note the Center's advocacy mission. Check whether the Center receives any funding from organizations with commercial interests in digital wellness products (apps, monitoring software, parenting platforms), as that would compound the conflict.
Corroboration Recommendation
Both claims require corroboration before publication as standalone assertions.
Follow-Up Questions
Methodology vagueness (re: "measurable cognitive decline"):
Single-source quantitative claim (re: "40 percent increase in anxiety diagnoses"):
Advocacy alignment vs. neutral expertise (re: Center for Digital Wellness mission):
Editorial Verdict
Anand is a credible expert within her domain, but she is an advocate first and a researcher second; her specific quantitative claims should be independently verified before being presented as established findings rather than her organization's research conclusions.
Next Step: Send the three Methodology and Single-source questions to Anand by email today (request the underlying studies as attachments). In parallel, contact one independent peer-reviewed researcher in adolescent media use without an advocacy affiliation for an on-record corroborating interview. Run statistics-fact-checker on the "40 percent" claim once the underlying study is in hand.
npx claudepluginhub ur-grue/autopunk-media-skills --plugin autopunk-media-skillsProduces a structured brief identifying financial, professional, and relational conflicts of interest for sources or stakeholders, with editorial handling recommendations.
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.
Designs a source evaluation protocol using lateral reading and credibility checks for websites, news articles, social media, and other digital sources.