# Source Credibility Analyzer

> Assess credibility, bias, and reliability of sources with explicit criteria and confidence ceilings.

- Skill: `majiayu000/source-credibility-analyzer` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add majiayu000/source-credibility-analyzer`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/majiayu000/source-credibility-analyzer/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: majiayu000 (https://skillmd.com/u/majiayu000)
- Updated: 2026-09-09
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/majiayu000/source-credibility-analyzer

---




## STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

### Purpose
- Evaluate sources before using them in research outputs.
- Make constraints and evidence explicit to avoid unvetted citations.
- Keep structure-first documentation aligned with skill-forge standards.

### Trigger Conditions
- **Positive:** screening papers/articles/web data for reliability; comparing conflicting sources.
- **Negative:** general synthesis (use `general-research-workflow`) or idea generation without sourcing.

### Guardrails
- Constraint buckets: HARD (recency, peer-review, provenance), SOFT (domain experts, diversity), INFERRED (author incentives) with sources.
- Two-pass evaluation: factual/provenance checks → epistemic/impact assessment.
- Confidence ceilings: observation 0.95 for verifiable facts; inference 0.70 for bias assessments.

### Inputs
- Source metadata (authors, venue, date, links).
- Research context and required quality thresholds.

### Workflow
1. **Scope & Constraints**: Record quality criteria and constraint buckets; confirm INFERRED motivations/risks.
2. **Provenance Check**: Validate authorship, venue, recency, and originality.
3. **Content Check**: Inspect methodology, data quality, reproducibility, and alignment to question.
4. **Bias & Risk Assessment**: Identify conflicts of interest, cherry-picking, or missing context.
5. **Score & Recommend**: Rate credibility with rationale and ceiling; recommend use/avoid/follow-up; store notes in references/examples.

### Validation & Quality Gates
- Evidence recorded for scores; conflicting indicators highlighted.
- Constraints respected; red flags noted.
- Confidence ceilings attached to each rating.

### Response Template
```
**Source & Context**
- ...

**Assessment**
- Provenance: ...
- Methodology: ...
- Bias/Risks: ...

**Rating**
- Credibility score + rationale + confidence ceiling.
- Recommendation: use / cautious / avoid.

Confidence: 0.82 (ceiling: inference 0.70) - based on evaluated criteria and evidence.
```

Confidence: 0.82 (ceiling: inference 0.70) - reflects completed checks with documented evidence.