Source Critique
Grade sources for trust, bias, freshness, and method.
Skill metadata
| Source | Bundled (installed by default) |
| Path | skills/research/source-critique |
| Version | 1.0.0 |
| Author | VibeOS |
| License | MIT |
| Platforms | linux, macos, windows |
| Tags | research, analysis, citations, trust, bias |
| Related skills | professional-research, comparative-analysis, arxiv |
Reference: full SKILL.md
信息
The following is the complete skill definition that VibeOS loads when this skill is triggered. This is what the agent sees as instructions when the skill is active.
Source Critique Skill
Score each source before relying on it. Output a scorecard — not vibes.
When to Use
- User asks “is this trustworthy?”, “critique these links”, or due diligence.
- After
web_search/ extract, before writing conclusions. - Part of
professional-researchwhen evidence quality is contested.
Prerequisites
- URLs or documents already in hand (search hits, extracts, PDFs).
- Optional:
scripts/score_sources.pyfromprofessional-researchfor a first pass.
How to Run
- List sources (url, title, claimed date, what it asserts).
- For each source fill the scorecard below.
- Summarize which claims are safe vs need corroboration.
Scorecard (per source)
### <Title>
- URL:
- Type: primary | secondary | opinion | aggregator | unknown
- Authority: who published / author credentials
- Freshness: date + still relevant? (stale if >2y for fast topics)
- Method: data / citation trail / anecdote / marketing
- Bias / incentive: commercial, political, SEO, none obvious
- Corroboration: backed by [other sources] | standalone
- Grade: A | B | C | D
- Use for: facts | context only | discard
- Notes:
Grading rubric
| Grade | Rule of thumb |
|---|---|
| A | Primary/official/peer + recent enough + clear method |
| B | Reputable secondary; method OK; minor gaps |
| C | Useful hint; must corroborate before relying |
| D | Low trust, stale, or pure opinion — background only |
Quick Reference
| Signal | Effect |
|---|---|
.gov / .edu / official registry | ↑ authority |
| Peer review / DOI / arXiv + citations | ↑ method |
| Undated SEO blog / affiliate | ↓ grade |
| Contradicts A-grade sources without data | flag conflict |
Procedure
- Prefer reading the page (
web_extract/ browser) over the SERP snippet. - Separate facts stated from interpretation.
- If two A/B sources conflict, keep both in a Contradictions section — do not pick silently.
- Never invent publication dates or author credentials.
Pitfalls
- Domain prestige ≠ correctness (press releases on big sites).
- “Study shows” without link to the study → grade ≤ C.
- Translations / secondary reports of primary data → mark as secondary.
Verification
- Every listed source has a grade and “use for”.
- At least one sentence on bias/incentive (even “none obvious”).
- Conflicts called out when present.