Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Reads a draft article and flags statements that pose defamation risk. Identifies legal concerns and specifies what verification, qualification, or right-of-reply is needed before publication.
npx claudepluginhub ur-grue/autopunk-media-skills --plugin autopunk-media-skillsHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/autopunk-media-skills:libel-check-briefThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Reviews a draft article and flags statements that could pose defamation risk, identifying the specific legal concern and specifying what verification, qualification, or right-of-reply is needed before publication.
Reviews a draft for defamation risk, flagging problematic passages with plain-language explanations and suggested editorial actions. Useful before publishing content that names individuals or organizations.
Extracts factual claims from PR copy, verifies each claim independently with concrete citations, and flags unresolved risk before journalist-facing drafts are sent.
Guides academic legal writing for law review articles and seminar papers following Volokh's style; enforces template use and proper citation practices.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Reviews a draft article and flags statements that could pose defamation risk, identifying the specific legal concern and specifying what verification, qualification, or right-of-reply is needed before publication.
Required: The full text of the draft article, or a detailed excerpt focusing on the passages you are concerned about; the publication jurisdiction (U.S., UK, Australia, or other — libel law varies significantly) Optional: Whether the named individuals are public figures or private individuals (different legal standards apply); whether the publication has already given subjects right-of-reply; any supporting documentation for the most sensitive claims
Tiered brief. Three sections: Red (do not publish without legal review), Amber (requires qualification, right-of-reply, or additional verification), Green (currently protected). Each flagged passage: Quoted text | Risk Category | Legal Concern Explained in Plain Language | Recommended Action | Suggested Rewrite. Every Red and Amber passage MUST include at least one Suggested Rewrite — a concrete, drop-in replacement sentence (or two) that the editor can paste into the draft. The rewrite must preserve the editorial intent of the original passage while reducing legal risk through attribution, qualification, or specificity. Closes with a publication readiness assessment. Language is plain English — journalists should be able to act on this without legal training, but sensitive cases must still go to a media lawyer. Output ends with a "Next Step" note: whether legal review is needed immediately, which Amber item to clear first, and whether to run claim-verification-checklist in parallel.
Suggested Rewrites for Red and Amber passages must follow one of these patterns, chosen to match the legal concern:
Draft excerpt: A profile of a regional real estate developer, including the following passages:
A) "Over the past decade, Hartwell Development has left a trail of unfinished projects and unpaid contractors." B) "According to two former employees, CEO Daniel Hartwell personally instructed staff to falsify safety inspection records." C) "Hartwell was investigated by the state attorney general's office in 2019." D) "Industry insiders describe Hartwell as a con man who preys on small investors." E) "The company's most recent development, Riverside Commons, was three years late and over budget — a pattern consistent with Hartwell's other projects." F) "Hartwell declined to respond to detailed questions submitted in writing."
Publication: U.S. national magazine Subject status: Hartwell is a private individual who operates primarily in local markets (not a public figure)
Libel Check Brief — Hartwell Development Profile Jurisdiction: United States. Subject: Private individual.
Note: Because Daniel Hartwell appears to be a private individual rather than a public figure, the applicable standard is ordinary negligence in most U.S. states — a lower burden for a plaintiff than the "actual malice" standard that applies to public figures. Handle with corresponding care.
RED — Do Not Publish Without Legal Review
Passage B: "According to two former employees, CEO Daniel Hartwell personally instructed staff to falsify safety inspection records."
Legal concern: This is a serious allegation of criminal conduct (falsifying official records) attributed directly to a named private individual by name. "Two former employees" are anonymous in this passage. If Hartwell denies this and sues, anonymous sourcing will not protect the publication. This passage requires: (1) documented on-record right-of-reply from Hartwell specifically to this allegation before publication; (2) corroborating documentary evidence or a third source willing to be identified; (3) legal review before publication regardless of verification status.
Recommended action: Do not publish without media lawyer sign-off. Obtain Hartwell's written response to this specific allegation.
Suggested rewrites (post legal review and right-of-reply):
AMBER — Requires Qualification or Right-of-Reply Before Publication
Passage A: "Over the past decade, Hartwell Development has left a trail of unfinished projects and unpaid contractors."
Legal concern: "Trail of" is characterization language that implies a pattern of wrongdoing. If this is supportable by specific documented examples — named projects, court records, contractor liens — it may be defensible as fair comment on documented facts. As currently written, it is an unqualified summary characterization that could be challenged as implying broader fraud than the evidence supports.
Recommended action: Either (a) replace with a specific enumeration of documented cases ("In three projects over the past decade, Hartwell Development left contractors unpaid, according to court records"), or (b) ensure the body of the article contains enough documented examples to support the lead characterization, and confirm right-of-reply from Hartwell on this characterization.
Suggested rewrite (specificity pattern): "Court filings reviewed by [Magazine] show three Hartwell Development projects since 2015 ended with unpaid contractor claims totaling at least $[amount]; in each case, contractors filed mechanic's liens or breach-of-contract suits, [N] of which resulted in judgments against Hartwell."
Passage D: "'Industry insiders describe Hartwell as a con man who preys on small investors.'"
Legal concern: "Con man" is defamatory on its face if presented as a factual description. The passive attribution "industry insiders describe" does not protect the publication — the magazine is publishing the statement. "Con man" implies criminal fraud; if Hartwell has not been convicted of fraud, this language is a significant liability.
Recommended action: Remove "con man" or replace with a direct quote from a named source willing to be identified. If multiple specific fraud allegations are documented in the article, the article's own evidence may be a partial defense — but "con man" language still requires legal review.
Suggested rewrites (removal-and-replacement pattern):
Passage C: "Hartwell was investigated by the state attorney general's office in 2019."
Legal concern: This is a factual claim that requires documentary corroboration. Investigations that did not result in charges are sensitive — naming someone as the subject of a government investigation can damage reputation regardless of outcome. Confirm whether this is verifiable from public records (AG press release, court docket, public filing) and whether the investigation is still active or was closed without action.
Recommended action: Verify from public record. Add outcome: "The investigation was closed without charges" or "the matter is ongoing," whichever is accurate. Do not leave the reader to assume guilt.
Suggested rewrites (outcome pattern, choose the one that matches the verified record):
GREEN — Currently Protected
Passage E: "The company's most recent development, Riverside Commons, was three years late and over budget."
Assessment: If verifiable from public records (building permits, planning documents, contract dates), this is a statement of fact about a company's project, not a personal character attack. It is defensible if accurate. Confirm factual basis and document it.
Passage F: "Hartwell declined to respond to detailed questions submitted in writing."
Assessment: Standard right-of-reply notation. Legally protected as a factual statement about the reporting process, provided the questions were actually submitted in writing. Keep the original communication on file.
Publication Readiness Assessment This draft is not ready for publication in its current form. Passage B (criminal conduct allegation) requires legal review and documented right-of-reply before any publication decision. Passage D ("con man") requires editing or removal. All other passages are addressable through standard editorial steps.
Next Step: Send Passage B's suggested rewrites to media counsel today, alongside Hartwell's written request for response. While that proceeds, paste the Passage A and C rewrites into the working draft to clear those Amber items. Run claim-verification-checklist on the full draft in parallel to lock down the underlying factual record.
This brief is an editorial pre-screening tool. It is not a substitute for review by a qualified media attorney.