一份坏来源能毁掉一篇好 essay 或一篇已发表论文。下面 15 个 Prompt 在来源进入参考文献前，强制做一次结构化可信度审计，覆盖权威、证据、时效、偏见，以及”一手”、“二手”和”第三手转述”的差别。
适合哪些场景
写 essay 的学生、做核查的记者、写报告的分析师、做参考文献的研究者，以及任何转述”我看到说…”的人。
什么时候不建议这样写 Prompt
已经反复核过的经典来源不用（你领域奠基教材、一手法条）。也不要只给 URL 让 AI 审——必须粘正文，AI 没办法替你浏览。
Prompt 结构公式
可信度 Prompt 一定要带这六个要素：
- 角色：AI 扮演谁——研究导师、同行评议人、考试教练、辩论对手、图书馆员。
- 上下文：水平、学科、deadline、论文数量、引用风格、课程或项目。
- 目标：一个具体交付物——12 道题、1 页文献矩阵、5 条反论、4 周复习计划。
- 限制：字数、深度、允许的来源类型、跳过什么、绝不主张什么。
- 输出格式：编号清单、表格、JSON 或分级块（E / M / H），能粘到 Notion / Anki / Word。
- 示例 / 信号：1-2 段参考或反例（“不要像维基那样讲”）。
这套 Prompt 适合用在哪
- 论文参考文献
- 新闻核查流水线
- 政策 / 行业报告
- 学术文献预筛
- “这条推真不真”的私人核查
15 个可直接复制的 Prompt 模板
1. CRAAP 测试（时效 / 相关 / 权威 / 准确 / 目的）
通用快筛，适合首轮。
You are an information-literacy librarian. Run the CRAAP test on the source below. For each of the 5 dimensions, score 1-5 with 1 sentence of evidence. End with one of: "use", "use with caveat", "do not use".
Source: {title, author, outlet, date, URL}
Content: {paste}可替换变量： title, author, outlet, date, URL, content
优化建议： 输出太软时追加：“Treat a score of 3 as fail-by-default. Be ruthless on Authority and Purpose.”
2. 作者权威核查
Audit the author of this source for authority on the specific claim ({claim}). Cover: relevant credentials, prior publications on this topic, institutional affiliation, conflicts of interest. If author info is missing, flag as a yellow card.
Source: {paste source + author bio}3. 一手 vs 二手 vs 转述
For each claim in the source below, classify it as: (a) primary (data/experiment/firsthand observation), (b) secondary (synthesis citing primaries), (c) third-hand (repeats a claim without citing primaries). Output as a table: claim | classification | nearest primary source if any.
{paste}4. 证据基础审计
List every factual claim in the source below. For each: is supporting evidence provided in the source itself? If yes, what type (study, dataset, anecdote, expert quote, "research shows")? If no, mark as unsupported.
{paste}5. 引用链溯源
The source claims "{claim}" and cites {Reference X}. Help me trace it: what would Reference X likely say if I read it, what to look for to verify it is being represented accurately, what would indicate it has been misrepresented.6. 资金 / 利益冲突筛查
Below is a source. Identify funding sources, sponsorships, advertising relationships, or disclosed conflicts. Then assess whether the conclusions align suspiciously with the funder’s interests.
{paste source + masthead / funding section}7. 时效 vs 共识检查
The source on {topic} is from {year}. Has the consensus on {claim} changed since then? Name 2-3 newer sources or developments to look for before relying on the original.8. 媒体偏向画像
Profile the outlet {outlet name}: editorial slant (if any), ownership structure, audience, peer-review status, retraction history. Mark which kinds of claims I should accept readily and which to double-check.9. 同行评议核验
The source claims to be peer-reviewed. Help me verify: journal impact factor, indexing in {Scopus / Web of Science / PubMed}, predatory-journal red flags (rapid acceptance, no editorial board, suspiciously broad scope, vanity fees).10. 引文 / 图片摘录检测
Below is a quoted passage in the source. Pretend you are reading the original; what context, qualifications, or counter-evidence might have been removed in the quote? List 3 things to look for in the original.
{paste quote + surrounding sentences}11. Wikipedia 作为信号灯
The Wikipedia article on {topic} says: "{paste excerpt}". Trace the citation it relies on, then assess: is this a well-summarized primary source, a circular citation, or a "citation needed" weak spot? Recommend whether to trust this statement.12. 跨来源互证
Find 2-3 independent sources that corroborate or contradict the central claim "{claim}". For each: name source, summarize position, note independence (different funder, different lab, different country). Conclude: claim status (well-supported, contested, isolated).13. AI / “搬运博客”检测
Audit this source for signs it is AI-generated content farm material or a "blog of blogs" with no original reporting: vague author bio, no source URLs, recycled paragraphs, suspiciously broad topic coverage, repeated phrasings.
{paste source}14. 统计数据审计
The source uses these statistics: {paste statistics}. For each: original source if any, sample size, methodology, time period, any obvious distortions (cherry-picked baseline, missing denominator, scale tricks). Flag any I should not cite without verification.15. 终审注释（参考文献条目）
Write a 4-line bibliography annotation for {source} covering: (a) what it claims, (b) credibility level (high / medium / use-with-caveat), (c) what to verify if I keep using it, (d) what to cite instead if I drop it.容易踩的坑
- 把”Google Scholar 上能找到”当作可信——predatory journal 也在里面。
- 只看摘要和标题——可信度问题通常藏在方法和资金段。
- 把二手引为一手——一定要回溯一层。
- 忽略日期——2009 年的”AI 伦理”文章已经是古董。
- 把”很多来源都说”当作”很多独立来源证实”——引用串联会制造共识假象。
- 行业资助研究不查资金，再惊讶于结论与金主利益一致。
- 让 AI 直接判”可信”而不要求溯源——必须要求引用或”无法核实”答复。
优化技巧
- 永远粘正文，不要只给 URL——AI 抓取不稳。
- 同一来源跑 3 套模板（CRAAP、一手/二手、时效），结果一致才放心。
- 数字类主张至少向前追两级引用——“WSJ 引 WHO 引…”脆弱。
- 当来源与你既有判断相反时审得更狠——那正是偏见最可能起作用的时刻。
- 维护一个”不再引用”清单，每条标一句理由。
- AI 是筛子不是法官——最终决定权在你。
- 论文、出版物、法律文书等高风险引用，AI 筛 + 人工核查双保险。
FAQ
- AI 能直接判断来源可信吗？: 它能在你粘正文后做结构化审计，不能替你为没看过的内容背书。
- 同行评议的论文一定可信吗？: 不一定。predatory journal 真实存在，有缺陷的同行评议也存在。用模板 9。
- 最快的单次检查是什么？: CRAAP（模板 1）+ 一手/二手溯源（模板 3）。这两个能挡住 80% 的弱来源。
- 该引用 Wikipedia 吗？: 引用 Wikipedia 指向的原始来源，而不是 Wikipedia 本身。模板 11 帮你溯源。
- 付费墙怎么办？: 通过图书馆或馆际互借拿全文，绝不要只看摘要做审计。