OSINT Source Validation & Credibility Framework
Validate OSINT sources and detect credibility issues before analysis
What You Can Do
You can rapidly assess source credibility using industry-standard criteria, identify planted disinformation and coordinated narratives, detect reporting bias and intentional distortions, and build auditable source reputation profiles. This framework helps you balance analytical velocity with methodological rigor, ensuring your intelligence assessments rest on validated data rather than suspect information.
Features
evaluate sources across authority, accuracy, corroboration, and track record dimensions
triangulate information across independent sources to confirm reliability
identify sponsorship bias, narrative framing, and ideological slant in reporting
flag planted information, coordinated campaigns, and known propaganda outlets
build dossiers on recurring sources with documented validation history
create defensible records of validation decisions for intelligence product review
systematically evaluate contradictory source claims with decision matrices
apply tailored criteria for SIGINT surrogates, geospatial data, technical intelligence, and HUMINT surrogates
Example Output
Example 1: News Source Validation
- Source: Russian state media outlet reporting on military capability
- Credibility Assessment: Authority (government-controlled, lower), Accuracy (track record of distortions), Corroboration (contradicts independent satellite imagery)
- Bias Detection: Clear narrative framing emphasizing military strength; known propaganda outlet
- Decision: CONDITIONAL USE — cite only for Russian narrative/posture assessment, not capability confirmation
Example 2: Social Media Intelligence Cross-Verification
- Claim: Facility movement detected in satellite imagery
- Source 1: Anonymous Twitter account (low authority, unverified)
- Source 2: Independent analysis from verified imagery analyst (high authority, corroborated)
- Source 3: Journalist with defense reporting background (established track record)
- Decision: VALIDATED — corroboration across independent sources; proceed to analysis
Example 3: Conflicting Technical Specifications
- Source A: Manufacturer specifications (authoritative but marketing bias)
- Source B: Independent teardown analysis (lower authority but technical credibility)
- Source C: Defense contractor assessment (high authority but vendor interest)
- Decision: Use weighted confidence levels; manufacturer spec for baseline, independent analysis for limitations
What's Included
- SKILL.md instruction file with complete validation framework and decision criteria:
- Source Credibility Assessment Matrix: structured evaluation template for authority, accuracy, corroboration, and track record
- Cross-Verification Protocol Checklist: step-by-step guide for triangulating claims across independent sources
- Bias Detection Worksheet: framework for identifying sponsorship bias, narrative framing, and ideological slant
- Source Reputation Profile Template: dossier structure for tracking recurring sources with validation history
- Disinformation Red Flags Reference: checklist of planted information indicators and known propaganda outlets
Who It's For
- Intelligence analysts — validating OSINT sources before integration into formal assessments
- Defense intelligence professionals — ensuring operationally reliable data for policy briefings
- Threat intelligence researchers — cross-verifying claims in adversary capability or intent analysis
- Geopolitical analysts — evaluating conflicting reporting on regional events and state actions
- Investigative researchers — building credible evidence chains from open-source information
Best For
- Source evaluation and credibility grading before analysis pipeline integration
- Disinformation campaign identification and coordinated narrative detection
- Cross-verification of conflicting claims from multiple OSINT sources
- Building auditable source reputation profiles for recurring information providers
- Preparing intelligence products for stakeholder briefing with defensible sourcing
You might also like
Streamline your systematic reviews by using Claude to screen abstracts against inclusion criteria, extract structured data from full texts, and synthesize findings across studies. Reduce manual screening time by 60-80% while maintaining rigorous documentation of your review methodology. Claude becomes your collaborative partner throughout the entire evidence synthesis workflow, from protocol planning to final data synthesis.
You receive a detailed systematic audit of your IRB protocol against federal regulations, institutional policies, and ethical standards. The skill identifies specific compliance gaps, maps findings to regulatory citations, and generates documented recommendations for remediation. You get a structured compliance assessment that pinpoints risk areas before submission or inspection.
Design comprehensive brand identity systems from scratch, including logos in 55+ styles, corporate identity programs with 50+ deliverables, design tokens and UI styling frameworks, professional banners in 22+ styles, custom SVG icons, and optimized social media assets across 8+ platforms. Claude generates production-ready files with mockups, specifications, and platform-specific formatting for immediate use.
You can rapidly analyze multiple research papers, extract quality metrics using evidence hierarchy frameworks, and generate structured literature syntheses. Claude evaluates study design, sample sizes, bias risk, and statistical significance to produce clinically actionable summaries that support evidence-based decision-making for healthcare providers and researchers.
Create professional banners, design systems, and brand-compliant content across multiple platforms. This comprehensive skill suite provides design intelligence for building UI/UX with systematic token architecture, component specifications, visual identity management, and AI-powered creative asset generation. Perfect for designing branded experiences with consistency, speed, and professional quality.
This skill guides you through a comprehensive peer review process using structured assessment templates, detailed evaluation rubrics, and evidence-based feedback frameworks. You'll generate detailed, constructive reviews that identify both strengths and weaknesses, provide actionable recommendations, and produce consistent evaluations suitable for academic journals, grant agencies, or conference committees.
This skill analyzes your academic manuscript and journal submission metadata against indexing standards from major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ). It identifies compliance gaps, recommends metadata improvements, optimizes keywords for discoverability, and validates citation formatting—helping your research reach the right audience and meeting publisher requirements on first submission.
This skill systematically reviews your research proposal against funder requirements, institutional policies, and compliance checkpoints to identify issues before submission. It validates proposal structure, budget justifications, and timelines while flagging common violations that could trigger desk rejections or revision requests. You'll receive a detailed compliance report with specific issues, severity levels, and actionable remediation steps for each funder type.