HomeCasa Evaluate a source's credibility with the SIFT and CRAAP methods
Find out whether an article, study or website is reliable enough for your work: authorship, funding, methods, currency and lateral reading, with a score, red flags and a verdict. Designed for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity. It includes 3 customizable variables and you can copy it for free in one click.
Beginner · Text · Pending editorial review
Prompt
Act as an academic librarian specializing in information literacy. You combine the SIFT method (Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, Trace to the original) with the CRAAP criteria (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose).
Source to evaluate: {{source}}
What I want to use it for: {{use}}
Topic of my work: {{topic}}
Deliverables:
1. Identification: what kind of source it is (peer-reviewed study, preprint, institutional report, news, blog, press release, sponsored content) and who publishes it.
2. Authorship and authority: who wrote it, what verifiable training or track record they have on the topic and whether they are writing within their field.
3. Funding and purpose: who pays for or promotes it, possible conflicts of interest and whether it aims to inform, persuade or sell.
4. Evidence and methods: whether the data has an identifiable origin, how it was collected, sample size where relevant and whether the conclusions match the data.
5. Currency: publication date and data date, and whether it has been superseded, corrected or retracted.
6. Lateral reading: what other reliable sources say about this source and its publisher, and whether independent sources agree on the essentials.
7. Red flags found (sensational headlines, no references, predatory journal, circular citations, emotional language).
8. CRAAP table with a 1-5 score per criterion and a one-line justification.
9. Verdict for my use: use as a primary source / use with caution and state its limits / do not use. If you do not recommend it, suggest what type of source to look for and where.
Rules:
- If you cannot open the source or browse the web, say so and work only with what I pasted, marking anything missing as [FILL IN].
- Do not invent facts about authors, journals, funding or retractions. If you mention alternative sources, only real ones with a verifiable link.
- Separate what you verified from your own judgment.
Format: short sections, the CRAAP table and a one-paragraph final verdict.How to use it
Paste the link or, without web access, the text with author, date and outlet. Say how you plan to use it: a source can be fine to illustrate an opinion but not to support a statistic. Double-check the author and journal details yourself before citing it.
Usage example
Source: a nutrition blog post claiming intermittent fasting speeds up metabolism · Use: cite it in a college paper · Topic: diet and metabolic health.
Sample output
I can't open the link, so I'm working only from your description and marking what's missing.
1. Identification
A nutrition blog post. Popular writing, not peer-reviewed. Publisher: [FILL IN].
3. Funding and purpose
Check whether the blog sells supplements, courses or fasting plans; if so, its purpose is also commercial. [FILL IN]
4. Evidence and methods
- "Speeds up metabolism" is a causal claim: does it cite a study? In humans? How long, and with what sample size? [FILL IN]
- Red flag if it relies on testimonials or one small study.
6. Lateral reading
Look up what other sources say about the blog and its author, and whether systematic reviews on intermittent fasting and energy expenditure agree. [SOURCE TO VERIFY: systematic review in PubMed or Cochrane]
8. CRAAP table
| Criterion | Score | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Currency | [FILL IN] | No publication date given |
| Relevance | 4 | Directly on your topic |
| Authority | 2 | Author's training not verified |
| Accuracy | 2 | Causal claim with no visible references |
| Purpose | 2 | Possible commercial interest |
9. Verdict
Don't use it as evidence in your paper. At most, cite it as an example of how the topic is presented to the public. Look instead for controlled trials or systematic reviews in PubMed, Scopus or the Cochrane Library…
Key facts
- Category
- Research · Source analysis
- Output type
- Text
- Level
- Beginner
- Designed for
- ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity
- Verified in
- Pending editorial verification
- Variables
- Source (link or text with author and date), What you want to use it for and Topic of your work
- Language
- English
- Price
- Free, no sign-up
- Updated
- Nov 7, 2026
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between SIFT and CRAAP?
SIFT is a quick checking routine that takes you off the page to compare; CRAAP is a checklist for scoring the source. Together they let you decide fast and document why.
Is a peer-reviewed study always reliable?
Not necessarily. It may have a small sample or a conflict of interest, may have been retracted or may appear in a predatory journal. That is why the prompt checks methods, funding and currency.
What is this prompt for?
Find out whether an article, study or website is reliable enough for your work: authorship, funding, methods, currency and lateral reading, with a score, red flags and a verdict.
Which AI tools does it work with?
It is designed for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Perplexity. We have not verified it in these tools yet, so results may vary between them.
How do I customize the prompt?
Click “Customize” and fill in the variables (Source (link or text with author and date), What you want to use it for and Topic of your work). The text updates instantly and you can then copy it in one click. Values are stored only in your browser.
Do I need experience to use it?
No. It is a beginner-level prompt: just fill in the details and paste it into your AI tool.
Is this prompt free?
Yes. Every HomeCasa Prompts prompt is free, with no sign-up or subscription. You can also use them in professional projects.
Can I trust the AI output?
Treat it as a high-quality draft: always check data, figures and important claims before publishing or making decisions.