By name: source-evaluation description: How to judge whether information is reliable. Applies a source hierarchy before incorporating any finding into a research brief.
Source Hierarchy
When evaluating information, apply this ordering — prefer higher tiers:
- Official documentation — vendor docs, RFC specs, language references
- Primary source code — the actual library/project, not descriptions of it
- Recent authoritative blog posts — from known maintainers or recognized experts
- Stack Overflow / community Q&A — useful for patterns, check answer date and vote count
- LLM training data recall — treat as a starting point only, not ground truth
When two sources conflict, the higher-tier source wins. When a lower-tier source contradicts official docs, note the discrepancy rather than silently resolving it.
Recency Check
- API and library guidance older than 2 years is suspect — check for version drift
- Security guidance must be current — old advisories may describe fixed issues
- Architectural patterns are longer-lived — age alone does not disqualify them
- Always note the date or version of a key source in the research brief
Maintenance Status
Before recommending a library or tool, check:
- Last release date and commit frequency
- Open issues vs. closed issues ratio
- Whether the README references abandonment or a maintained fork
- Community size (number of contributors, downstream dependents)
An abandoned library may still be the right answer for stable, finished domains. Flag it explicitly rather than hiding it.
Red Flags
- Source cites no version and the landscape changes quickly
- Source author has obvious vendor bias for one option
- "Best practice" advice with no rationale — look for the reasoning
- A single source supporting a strong claim — find corroboration