Fund source verification
The Bubble Shop — free, open-source Claude Code skills & plugins by Bubble Invest. One-command install. We're not developers — we built these to run our own family office. Help us improve them.
npx -y skills add vdk888/bubble-skills --skill fund-source-verificationAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Source-tier classification + independent-verification rubric for any external signal (news, Substack, paywalled wires, sentiment trackers). Load whenever you're about to act on a third-party claim or write "<outlet> reports X" in a memo.
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
4.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Fund source verification — tier discipline + corroboration rubric
Operating principle: the source is a HYPOTHESIS, not an answer. Cross-source independent verification is THE workflow, not a polish step.
When to invoke
- Any research step that turns a third-party claim into a note, a proposal, or KPI commentary; whenever you're tempted to write "<outlet> reports X" without a second-source check.
Source tier definitions
Maintain your own curated source-tier list (e.g. a sources.yaml) mapping each outlet to a tier. Tiers drive corroboration math:
- tier_a — high trust; institutional wire / central bank / primary data. Solo corroboration accepted for "investigate deeper". Examples: FT Markets, ECB Press, BEA, FRED Research News, FRED Blog.
- tier_b — medium trust; curated commentary / paywall mirrors. Examples: named research desks, financial-press mirrors of well-known commentators, thematic Substack pieces.
- tier_c — noise-tolerant; contrarian/sentiment. NEVER surfaces an idea alone. Examples: contrarian blogs, retail sentiment trackers.
Keep the full per-source classification in your sources list — look up tier: per source name when citing, rather than duplicating it in prose.
Verification rubric
For every candidate, before you score, write up, or propose:
- Find ≥2 independent corroborating signals. Independence means different information chain (Reuters citing Bloomberg ≠ Bloomberg citing Reuters — that is ONE chain), different measurement (headline + price/flow number = independent; two headlines saying the same = ONE point), or different angle/horizon.
- Use ≥2 of these methods: price-action check (price bars on named tickers), structural data (filings, FRED, BEA, policy docs — primary not commentary), your own telemetry (prior memos, position history, KPI history), independent coverage (web search across 2-3 outlets), logic/math sanity check (work the numbers yourself).
- Tier gating:
- tier_a solo OK if rest of evidence is structural (price action, position flag, calendar event)
- tier_b needs ≥1 tier_a OR ≥1 additional tier_b
- tier_c needs ≥2 independent tier_a corroborations — tier_c solo gets a heavy penalty (effectively dead)
- Paywall check: if you only see title/lede, treat the source as a hypothesis prompt, not evidence. Run the full rubric on the thesis as inferred from public coverage. Never fabricate what the paywalled body "probably" says.
- Recency / budget: spend ≤3-5 minutes per candidate. If it doesn't corroborate inside that budget, drop it — a real signal will resurface tomorrow with more evidence.
What to write when verified
In the brief / memo, every retained item shows:
Thesis source: <name, tier>
Verification:
- <independent method 1>: <what you checked, what you found>
- <independent method 2>: <what you checked, what you found>
Corroborated: yes / partial / no
When citing tier_c, ALWAYS pair with the tier_a signal that promoted it — e.g. "retail sentiment on URA bullish (tier_c) + uranium spot +8% WTD (Reuters Energy tier_a) + URA 20d RS vs SPY +4.3 ppts (calc)."
Failure modes
- No corroboration found inside budget → mark
unverified — discarded; demote per your gating math (tier_c solo penalized; tier_b unaccompanied does not pass; tier_a solo + structural is the minimum). Land it in the brief'sDiscardedsection with one line on what failed — transparency matters. - Sibling-source dressing (FORBIDDEN): never count a Reuters story re-published by a contrarian blog as two sources. That is one chain. Same for a Substack quoting FT, or a press outlet mirroring a commentator verbatim — the mirror plus the original ≠ two sources.
- Paywall fabrication (FORBIDDEN): never write "the FT piece probably argues X" as if it were evidence. The lede is the only thing that exists for verification purposes.
- Skipping the rubric to pad a TOP-N list: a brief with zero
Discardedentries on an average-signal day is suspicious — either the rubric was skipped or weak candidates were smuggled in. The discard tail is a feature.
Pure reference skill — no shell commands, no actions. This file is the rubric only; keep your per-source tier list and your scoring math elsewhere.