Prompt library
Check a source's credibility
Most citation failures are fit failures: the source is real but supports a weaker claim than the sentence it decorates. Separating provenance, method, and fit makes that gap explicit, and the ready-to-paste caveat sentence makes the safe path the easy path.
Last reviewed July 17, 2026
The prompt
Assess the credibility of the source below for the claim I want to use it for.
Source: {{source}}
Claim I want to support: {{claim}}
Evaluate:
1. Provenance: who produced it, what they sell or advocate, and who funded it.
2. Method: primary data, secondary aggregation, or opinion. Sample, date, and geography if empirical.
3. Fit: does the source actually support my specific claim, a weaker version of it, or something adjacent?
4. Freshness: is the finding likely to still hold, and what could have changed it?
5. Verdict: cite as-is, cite with caveats (write the caveat sentence for me), find corroboration (say what kind), or do not use.
Be specific about the gap between what I want to claim and what the source shows.Run in idaptOpens a new chat with the prompt prefilled. Nothing sends until you press send.
Fill in the variables
| Variable | What it is | Example |
|---|---|---|
| {{source}} | The source: link text, abstract, or description | a 2024 vendor-published survey of 400 IT managers on AI adoption |
| {{claim}} | The sentence you want the source to support | most enterprises have deployed AI assistants internally |