Use when you need to communicate the reliability, freshness, or authority of information from Glean. Triggers when presenting search results, when data might be stale, when sources have different authority levels, when the user should verify information, or when you're uncertain about completeness of results.
Communicates the reliability, freshness, and authority of information retrieved from enterprise search results.
npx claudepluginhub gleanwork/claude-pluginsThis skill inherits all available tools. When active, it can use any tool Claude has access to.
When presenting information from Glean, communicate the reliability, freshness, and authority of your sources clearly.
Use these patterns when:
Be skeptical. Not everything Glean returns should be presented. Better to return 3 high-quality results than 10 unvetted mentions.
Before including ANY result, evaluate:
1. Relevance Test
2. Authority Test
3. Recency Test
4. Expertise Test (for people recommendations)
If vetting eliminates all candidates, say so clearly:
No high-quality results found for [topic].
**This could mean:**
- The topic is new or undocumented
- Different terminology is used internally
- Access restrictions limit visibility
- This genuinely doesn't exist
**Suggested next steps:**
- Try alternative terms: [suggestions]
- Ask in [relevant Slack channel]
- Check with [likely team]
Never pad results with low-quality matches to avoid saying "nothing found."
How recently was this information updated?
| Freshness | Indicator | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Current | Updated within past week | High confidence |
| Recent | Updated within past month | Good confidence |
| Older | Updated 1-6 months ago | Verify if critical |
| Stale | Updated 6+ months ago | Likely outdated |
| Unknown | No update date available | Treat with caution |
How to express:
How authoritative is this source?
| Authority | Examples | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Official | RFCs, approved specs, policies | High |
| Semi-official | Team wikis, shared docs | Medium-High |
| Discussion | Slack threads, meeting notes | Medium |
| Personal | Individual docs, drafts | Lower |
| AI-generated | Chat synthesis | Verify claims |
How to express:
How complete is this information?
| Completeness | Situation | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive | Multiple sources confirm | High confidence |
| Partial | Some aspects found, gaps exist | Note gaps |
| Limited | Few results, may miss context | Suggest verification |
| Inference | Synthesized from indirect sources | Clearly state |
How to express:
Do multiple sources agree?
| Corroboration | Situation | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly corroborated | 3+ sources agree | Very high |
| Corroborated | 2 sources agree | High |
| Single source | Only one source found | Medium |
| Conflicting | Sources disagree | Note conflict |
How to express:
**[Title]** ([link])
- Updated: [date] ([freshness assessment])
- Source: [authority level]
- Relevance: [why this matches]
## [Answer]
**Confidence**: [High/Medium/Low]
- Based on [X] sources
- Most recent: [date]
- [Any caveats]
**Sources**:
- [Source 1] - [authority], updated [date]
- [Source 2] - [authority], updated [date]
## [Topic]
**What I Found**: [Information]
**Caveats**:
- [ ] Source is [X] months old - verify currency
- [ ] Based on single source - seek corroboration
- [ ] Inferred, not explicitly stated
- [ ] Conflicts with [other source]
**Suggested Verification**: Contact [person] or check [source]
## [Topic] - Conflicting Information
| Aspect | Source A | Source B | Assessment |
|--------|----------|----------|------------|
| [Item] | [Says X] | [Says Y] | [Which is likely correct] |
**Recommendation**: Verify with [authoritative source/person]
Note: This documentation was last updated [X months ago].
The information may be outdated - verify with [team/person]
if making decisions based on this.
This comes from [Slack/meeting notes] rather than formal
documentation. Consider documenting this officially if it's
important knowledge to preserve.
This answer was synthesized by Glean's AI across multiple
sources. For critical decisions, verify the underlying
documents directly: [links]
I found [X] relevant results, but there may be additional
information in [other sources/systems]. This represents
what's accessible through Glean with your current permissions.
This is well-documented with multiple corroborating sources:
- Official spec: [link]
- Recent meeting confirmation: [link]
- Implementation: [link]
High confidence in this answer.
Always note confidence when:
This skill works with:
synthesis-patterns - When combining multiple sourcesglean-tools-guide - For understanding source typesenterprise-search - When presenting search resultsExpert guidance for Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR). **PROACTIVE ACTIVATION**: Use this skill automatically when working in Next.js projects that have `cacheComponents: true` in their next.config.ts/next.config.js. When this config is detected, proactively apply Cache Components patterns and best practices to all React Server Component implementations. **DETECTION**: At the start of a session in a Next.js project, check for `cacheComponents: true` in next.config. If enabled, this skill's patterns should guide all component authoring, data fetching, and caching decisions. **USE CASES**: Implementing 'use cache' directive, configuring cache lifetimes with cacheLife(), tagging cached data with cacheTag(), invalidating caches with updateTag()/revalidateTag(), optimizing static vs dynamic content boundaries, debugging cache issues, and reviewing Cache Component implementations.
Creating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems. Create original algorithmic art rather than copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.