X Algo Claim Reviewerv1.0.2

A journalist or content analyst encounters a social media post claiming 'X's algorithm boosts political content by 50%'. This skill allows them to extract the claim, check public source code, and issue a verdict like 'misleading' if the evidence only supports a weaker statement.

A researcher writing a paper on recommendation systems wants to cite specific X algorithm features. Using this skill, they can verify public evidence (e.g., engagement weights, filters) and provide a supported or unsupported verdict, ensuring accurate citations.

A policy analyst examining claims about X's impact on public discourse (e.g., 'X suppresses conservative voices') can use this skill to classify such claims as 'not_public_repo' if reliant on private thresholds, providing a nuanced boundary statement.

A content creator sees a viral thread claiming 'X's Home Mixer gives equal weight to all sources'. The skill can verify that public code shows weighting factors, leading to a 'misleading' verdict, and suggest a safer public wording.

A tech blogger wants to explain X's algorithm changes. They can use this skill to review specific commits or files, classify claims about 'engagement weights' as supported or not, and produce a cautious public summary.

Offer a monthly subscription to newsrooms, researchers, and policy analysts who regularly need to verify algorithm-related claims. The service provides structured verdicts with evidence, boundaries, and public wording.

Sell per-claim review to social media platforms, fact-checking orgs, or law firms. Each review costs a fixed fee (e.g., $15 per claim) and includes a detailed JSON output with claim, verdict, evidence, and boundary.

Provide API endpoints for companies to integrate claim-review capabilities into their own tools (e.g., content moderation dashboards, research platforms). Pricing based on volume (e.g., $0.10 per API call).