⚡ Promptolis Original · Learning & Growth
🔎 Source Evaluation — CRAAP Framework
Not all sources equal. CRAAP: Currency / Relevance / Authority / Accuracy / Purpose. Distinguish peer-reviewed research from blog opinion. Essential for…
Why this is epic
CRAAP (Meriam Library, CSU Chico 2004) is the most-taught source-evaluation framework. 5 dimensions systematically evaluate credibility.
Critical for research papers (citation quality affects grade) + general media literacy (knowing what to believe).
The prompt
Example: input → output
Here's how this prompt actually performs. Real input below, real output from Claude Opus 4.
<source-to-evaluate>A 2019 blog post by a nutrition influencer (no credentials listed) about keto diet reversing diabetes. Claims to cite studies but links are affiliate product pages.</source-to-evaluate> <usage-context>Academic — researching for sociology paper on health information trustworthiness</usage-context>
CRAAP Evaluation
Currency
2019. 6 years old. For nutrition research, that's moderately dated — keto diet research has advanced significantly since. Red flag for 'current information.' ⚠️
Relevance
Relevant to your topic? Only as EXAMPLE of misleading health information — not as reliable source on keto diet claims. Context-dependent utility.
Authority
'Nutrition influencer' + no listed credentials. No stated medical, research, or academic background. Likely not authoritative for medical claims about diabetes reversal. ❌
Accuracy
'Links to affiliate product pages' instead of peer-reviewed research = accuracy red flag. Financial motivation to cite favorably. Not verifiable by primary source. ❌
Purpose
Promotion of products (affiliate links) + persuasion to adopt diet. Not informational for research purposes. Commercial intent dominant. ❌
Verdict
Don't cite as reliable source on keto diet science.
DO cite if paper topic is 'trust in health information' — this source is EVIDENCE of the problem you're studying, not authority on the subject.
For actual keto science research, seek:
- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
- Diabetes Care journal
- Peer-reviewed systematic reviews / meta-analyses
- American Diabetes Association position statements
- Specific researcher names: Gary Taubes (journalist; investigates), Stephan Guyenet (obesity researcher)
Always check: who's the author, where was it published, when, who funded the research, what's the methodology.
Common use cases
- Research paper source vetting
- General fact-checking
- News media literacy
- Student + professional research
Best AI model for this
Sonnet 4.5.
Pro tips
- Peer-reviewed > popular press.
- Check author credentials (LinkedIn, institutional affiliation).
- Date matters — especially rapidly-changing fields.
- Follow citations back — primary vs. secondary sources.
- Purpose matters — persuade vs. inform.
Customization tips
- For news sources: bias + funding + corrections-record matter.
- For scientific sources: journal impact factor + peer-review + replication status.
- For medical information: government sources (CDC, NIH) + academic medical centers + WHO reliably-authoritative.
Variants
Default CRAAP
Standard framework
News Media Evaluation
Current-events application
Scientific Source
Research paper specific
Health Information
Medical credibility
Frequently asked questions
How do I use the Source Evaluation — CRAAP Framework prompt?
Open the prompt page, click 'Copy prompt', paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini, and replace the placeholders in curly braces with your real input. The prompt is also launchable directly in each model with one click.
Which AI model works best with Source Evaluation — CRAAP Framework?
Sonnet 4.5.
Can I customize the Source Evaluation — CRAAP Framework prompt for my use case?
Yes — every Promptolis Original is designed to be customized. Key levers: Peer-reviewed > popular press.; Check author credentials (LinkedIn, institutional affiliation).
Explore more Originals
Hand-crafted 2026-grade prompts that actually change how you work.
← All Promptolis Originals