Before publishing [draft], inventory every factual, statistical, quoted, or attributed claim a reader could verify. Find the best current primary source for each and label it supported, outdated, misattributed, unsupported, or unverifiable. Fix the riskiest mismatch, then recheck that claim and anything depending on it. Repeat until no high-risk unsupported claim remains or five rounds are exhausted. Never invent a source, cite evidence that does not support the claim, or alter a quotation. Ask before changing a named person’s quote or a legal, medical, or financial statement. Stop without changes if there are no checkable claims; stop as blocked when adequate evidence is unavailable. Finish with the claim-to-source table, corrections made, unresolved claims, and decisions requiring an editor.
claude-code · codex
Use this when
Use this immediately before publishing an article, newsletter, post, report, or other factual draft whose claims, quotations, and attributions need a final evidence check.
How it runs
Inventory every factual, statistical, quoted, and attributed claim.
Check each claim against the best available current primary source.
Repair the riskiest mismatch and recheck dependent claims.
Repeat within the five-round budget until the evidence gate passes.
Deliver the claim-to-source table and unresolved editorial decisions.
Done when
✓ Every checkable claim is supported or visibly flagged. The final claim-to-source table traces each checkable claim to current supporting evidence or marks it for an editor, with no high-risk unsupported claim silently left in the draft.
Why it works
Claim-level verification prevents a polished draft from hiding unsupported facts, stale numbers, incorrect attribution, or citations that do not actually support the text.
Implementation note
Primary sources are not always available. Flag the limitation instead of substituting weak evidence or presenting an unverifiable claim as confirmed.
Find a repeatable weekly post format for [approved account, audience, and topic] through a six-week experiment. If the account, audience, or topic is missing, ask for it before drafting. Obtain approval before publishing anything externally. Each week, draft one short post about a real problem [person, product, or company] solves. Record substantive replies, saves, and questions after the same measurement window. Treat likes as secondary evidence. Keep the audience, topic area, cadence, and measurement window comparable. Change only one meaningful element each week, such as the opening, format, example, or call to action, based on the strongest signal from the previous post. Stop when one format materially outperforms the alternatives, the six-week experiment ends without a winner, approval is withheld, required metrics are unavailable, or the budget is exhausted. Never fabricate engagement data. Finish with every post, its measurements, the variables tested, the winning format or no-winner result, and the next recommendation.
Improve [landing page or purchase page] using objections from recent buyers. Before contacting anyone, identify the approved buyer group, outreach channel, privacy rules, and message. Obtain explicit approval for the outreach. Interview buyers in batches of five, up to fifteen people total. Ask each person one question: What almost stopped you from buying? Record their exact words while protecting their identity and honoring any consent or communication requirements. After each batch, group repeated concerns and draft a proposed copy change for the point on the page where each concern is most likely to arise. Do not publish the copy without approval. Use the next batch to check whether the same concern still appears. Stop when the concern no longer repeats, fifteen interviews are complete, the outreach budget ends, or access is blocked. Finish with anonymized quotes, recurring concerns, proposed copy, evidence by batch, and the recommended page change.