# Authenticity Reviewer > Fast single-pass adversarial review for community content (Reddit comments, short-form posts, HN threads). Checks AI tells, tone match, value-add vs. existing thread, and account-level risk. Runs before posting, not after a full pipeline. Lighter and faster than text-review-loop. - Skill: `derivativelabs/authenticity-reviewer` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add derivativelabs/authenticity-reviewer` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/derivativelabs/authenticity-reviewer/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: DevOps & Infra - Author: DerivativeLabs (https://skillmd.com/u/derivativelabs) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/derivativelabs/authenticity-reviewer --- # Authenticity Reviewer ## Purpose Community content fails differently than brand content. Brand content fails when it's off-voice or factually wrong. Community content fails when it **reads as AI** or **feels planted**. A single inauthentic comment from a warming account can get called out, shadowbanned, or worse — make the account toxic before is posted. This skill is the lightweight gate before posting **any community content** — Reddit comments, HN replies, Indie Hackers threads, Bluesky posts. It takes 2 minutes and prevents mistakes that take 2 weeks to recover from. **Use this skill, not text-review-loop, for:** - Reddit comments and posts (especially from warming accounts) - HN Show/Ask submissions - Bluesky replies in developer communities - Any short-form content where you're participating, not broadcasting **Use text-review-loop for:** - Planned brand content (blog posts, Reddit post, LinkedIn essays) - Content going through the full approval-gate pipeline - Anything requiring brand artifact consistency checks --- ## Inputs Required Before running, gather: 1. **The draft** — the comment or post you're about to submit 2. **Thread context** — title, score, top 5-8 existing comments (with author + score) 3. **Target community** — subreddit, HN, Bluesky, etc. 4. **Account context** — karma, age, posting history (if warming account) ```bash # Fetch thread context from Reddit JSON API curl -s "https://www.reddit.com/r//comments//.json" \ -H "User-Agent: AuthReviewer/1.0 (research)" | \ jq '[.[1].data.children[] | select(.kind == "t1") | {author: .data.author, score: .data.score, body: .data.body}] | .[0:8]' ``` --- ## The 7-Point Authenticity Check Work through each point. Flag issues. Issue a verdict at the end. ### 1. Value-Add Check **Question:** Does this comment add something the existing comments haven't covered? - Read all top comments first - Map what's already been said (specific patterns, angles, counter-arguments) - Identify what the draft contributes that's genuinely new - **Flag if:** The draft restates what's already there, or makes a point that's clearly lower quality than an existing comment ### 2. AI Tell Scan **Question:** Does any phrase, structure, or sentence pattern flag as AI-generated? Common AI tells in community content: - Opener that validates the post before pivoting ("This is great. The thing I'd add...") - Three-paragraph essay structure in a comment context - Smooth transitions between unrelated points ("One thing to watch for...") - Overly balanced perspective (acknowledging both sides when a real dev would just have an opinion) - Polished sentence rhythm — real comments have rough edges - Compound sentences that are too clean: "X → Y. A → B. C → D." - Hedging language: "might," "could," "tends to" when real devs say "does" or "doesn't" - Named frameworks without attribution ("The credibility formula," "The half-lives framing") **Flag any detected tells. They must be rewritten or cut.** ### 3. Specificity Credibility Check **Question:** Are the specific details (error messages, version numbers, config values, gotchas) genuine — or do they feel inserted to signal credibility? - Genuine specificity: arises naturally from the experience being described - Planted specificity: technically accurate but disconnected from what the thread is actually about - **The test:** Would a developer who had this experience actually mention this detail *in this thread*? Or does it belong in a different thread? **Flag if:** A specific detail is technically real but contextually forced. ### 4. Tone Match Check **Question:** Does the comment match how people actually write in this community? - Check existing comment tone: Are they casual or formal? Do they use code blocks? Do they ask questions or make statements? - Check sentence length: Short and punchy, or longer and discursive? - Check vocabulary: Community jargon vs. generic tech terms - Check opinion directness: Do commenters hedge, or do they state opinions flat? - **Flag if:** The draft is noticeably more polished, longer, or more structured than the top comments ### 5. Connection Check **Question:** Does the comment actually engage with the specific post or thread, or is it generic advice that could apply anywhere? - A real commenter references something specific from the post (a phrase, a design decision, a code snippet) - Generic comments ("great pattern, I do something similar") feel detached - **Flag if:** The comment would read exactly the same if posted on a different thread about a similar topic ### 6. Account Risk Check **Question:** Given the account's karma, age, and posting history — is this comment likely to be filtered, flagged, or shadowbanned? Risk factors (each increases risk): - Karma < 50 on a post with > 100 score → moderate risk - First comment in a subreddit → moderate risk - Long, polished, multi-paragraph comment from a new account → high risk - Multiple comments in the same subreddit same day → high risk - Any external link in first 30 days → block **Mitigation:** Shorter comment, rougher edges, ask a question instead of making statements, post in a lower-traffic thread first. ### 7. Strategic Fit Check **Question:** Does this comment serve the warming goal — building genuine community reputation — or does it serve a different goal (brand awareness, product placement, backlinks)? - Phase 1 goal: Be seen as a knowledgeable, helpful developer. No product mentions. - **Flag if:** The comment leans toward demonstrating expertise in a specific product area that will later be revealed as "our product" --- ## Verdict Format ``` AUTHENTICITY REVIEW ------------------- Draft: [2-3 word description] Target: r/ | Post score: Account: u/ | Karma: | Day of warming CHECKS: 1. Value-add: [PASS / FLAG: reason] 2. AI tells: [PASS / FLAG: specific phrase or pattern] 3. Specificity: [PASS / FLAG: reason] 4. Tone match: [PASS / FLAG: reason] 5. Connection: [PASS / FLAG: reason] 6. Account risk: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH: reason] 7. Strategic fit: [PASS / FLAG: reason] VERDICT: [POST / REVISE / CUT] POST — All checks pass. No flags. Account risk LOW or MEDIUM with mitigation. REVISE — 1-2 flags with clear fixes. Revised draft provided. CUT — Multiple flags, or a single HIGH-severity flag. Don't post this comment; find a different thread. ISSUES: [List each flagged item with specific fix or cut recommendation] REVISED DRAFT (if REVISE verdict): [Cleaned version] ``` --- ## Common Fixes | Problem | Fix | |---------|-----| | AI tell opener | Cut opener entirely. Lead with the substance. | | Three-paragraph essay | Cut to 1-2 paragraphs. Pick the strongest one. | | Planted specificity | Cut the specific detail, or find a thread where it naturally belongs | | Too polished | Break a sentence. Use a contraction. Remove one transition. | | Generic — could be anywhere | Add one direct reference to something specific in the post | | Too long for account risk | Cut to 100-150 words for new accounts on high-score posts | | Balanced when dev would have opinion | Pick a side. Remove the hedge. | --- ## Relationship to Other Skills | Skill | When to use | |-------|------------| | **authenticity-reviewer** (this) | Before posting any community comment or short post | | **text-review-loop** | Before publishing planned brand content (blog, , essays) | | **content-angle** | Before writing — to pick the right angle | | **adversarial-reviewer** | Before any action with significant blast radius (deploy, external comms, auth changes) | --- ## Example: What We Caught (Reference Run) **Post:** r/ClaudeCode "Self-improvement Loop" (score 269) **Draft:** 3-paragraph comment on memory hierarchy half-lives + new Date(undefined) gotcha **Flags caught:** - AI tell opener: "The wrap-up pattern is solid" → validation-before-pivot pattern - Planted specificity: `new Date(undefined)` paragraph — technically real, but disconnected from this thread - Essay structure: 3 clean paragraphs with smooth transitions — too composed **Verdict:** REVISE **Fix:** Cut opener, cut third paragraph, tighten to 2 paragraphs **Result:** Shorter, rougher, more credible — the half-lives framing stood on its own --- *Refactored from: adversarial-reviewer (robustness) → content authenticity context* *Paired with: text-review-loop (heavyweight), content-angle (pre-writing)*