research-source-evaluation

name: research-source-evaluation description: When searching for authoritative sources for skills or validating existing source links. version: 1.0.0 tokens: ~400 confidence: high sources:

• https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content
• https://www.w3.org/TR/ last_validated: 2025-01-10 next_review: 2025-01-24 tags: [research, sources, validation, skills]

When to Use

When searching for authoritative sources for skills or validating existing source links.

Patterns

Source Tiers (Credibility)

Tier 1 (Highest):
  - Official docs (react.dev, supabase.com/docs)
  - RFCs, W3C specs
  - GitHub source code

Tier 2:
  - Official blogs (vercel.com/blog)
  - Release notes, changelogs
  - Core team members' posts

Tier 3:
  - Reputable tech companies (AWS, Google, etc.)
  - Well-known authors (Kent C. Dodds, Dan Abramov)

Tier 4:
  - Stack Overflow (high votes, recent)
  - GitHub issues (official repos)

Tier 5 (Lowest):
  - Personal blogs, tutorials
  - Medium articles (verify author)

Search Strategy

# Primary search (official)
"[technology] site:docs.*.com OR site:*.dev"

# Version-specific
"[technology] [version] documentation"

# Latest practices
"[technology] best practices 2024 2025"

# Breaking changes
"[technology] migration guide OR breaking changes"

Source Validation Checklist

✅ Domain is official project domain
✅ Content dated within 12 months
✅ Author is maintainer/team member
✅ Links to source code or spec
✅ No outdated version warnings

Anti-Patterns

• Using StackOverflow answers >2 years old
• Blog posts without checking official docs
• Ignoring version numbers in examples
• Trusting AI-generated content without verification

Verification Checklist

• Source is Tier 1-3
• Content is recent (<12 months)
• No deprecation warnings on page
• Multiple sources agree on pattern