Skill: colto111/wikipedia-publisher (version 0.3.0)

--- name: wikipedia-publisher description: Draft, review, de-risk, and publish Wikipedia or Wikidata content with a bias toward policy-safe workflow. Use when creating or editing encyclopedia articles, sandbox drafts, Wikidata items, citations, notability/source assessments, conflict-of-interest reviews, or MediaWiki wikitext. Especially useful for company, founder, product, or client subjects where promotional tone, weak sourcing, or direct-to-mainspace publishing would be risky. --- # Wikipedia Publisher Use a conservative workflow. Prefer publishable drafts over impressive drafts. ## Default workflow 1. **Collect evidence first** - Gather independent secondary coverage before writing. - Separate independent sources from primary/company sources. - Do not treat the subject's own site as proof of notability. - Run `scripts/citation_fetch_enricher.py` first when URLs are bare, weak, or missing metadata. - Run `scripts/source_hygiene.py` and `scripts/notability_score.py` early. 2. **Decide the safest target** - Prefer `User:` sandbox or `Draft:` namespace for new articles. - Use mainspace only when the article is already established or the user explicitly wants that path and the sourcing is strong. - For conflict-of-interest situations, prefer sandbox + disclosure-minded language. 3. **Write plain, non-promotional prose** - State what the subject is, why it received coverage, and what reliable sources say. - Attribute claims when needed: "According to X..." or "Coverage in Y described..." - Avoid mission-language, puffery, rankings, and unverified superlatives. - If a paragraph smells like PR, run `scripts/coi_rewrite.py` and then edit manually. 4. **Run a risk pass before publishing** - Check tone with `scripts/coi_tone_lint.py`. - Check citation/source mix with `scripts/source_hygiene.py`. - Check likely rejection risk with `scripts/deletion_risk_check.py`. - Use `scripts/citation_normalizer.py` to clean weak references. - Remove unsupported claims, crowded lists, and anything sourced only to the subject. - Make sure the lead can stand on independent sources alone. 5. **Publish conservatively** - Save to sandbox/draft first unless there is a good reason not to. - Use `scripts/sandbox_publish.py --dry-run` before live save. - Use a factual edit summary. - Verify the live page after save. ## Writing rules - Prefer independent news/features/books over press releases, directories, or the company site. - Keep claims proportional to source strength. - Use primary sources for routine facts only: founding date, location, official name, contact details, basic product list. - Avoid these unless clearly and independently sourced: - "leading", "world-class", "premier", "innovative", "trusted" - "official" except when it is structurally true and relevant - unsourced rankings, market leadership, customer counts, geographic scale, or awards - Do not pad new articles with trivia or exhaustive project catalogs. - When in doubt, shorten. ## Article shape for company/org drafts Use this default structure unless the sourcing suggests otherwise: - Lead - History - Operations or Products/Services - Reception / Coverage / Major projects (only if independently notable) - See also Skip sections that cannot be supported cleanly. ## Sandbox-first publishing pattern When the user wants a new page: 1. Draft locally in `.wiki` or `.md`. 2. Convert to clean MediaWiki markup if needed. 3. Save to `User:<name>/<topic>` or `Draft:<topic>`. 4. Fetch the saved page and inspect the rendered result. 5. Only then discuss moving toward mainspace. ## Wikidata pattern For Wikidata work: - confirm an item does not already exist - collect minimally sufficient identifiers and statements - prefer low-controversy statements first: instance of, country, official website, inception, founders - cite every claim you can - avoid copying marketing copy into descriptions or aliases - use `scripts/wikidata_helper.py` for a clean starter bundle ## Red flags that should slow you down Read `references/red-flags.md` when any of these appear: - only primary or affiliated sources - article reads like PR - many claims use the same weak source repeatedly - the user wants direct mainspace publication for their own company/client - notability seems to rest on routine business coverage or local mentions ## Helpful resources - `scripts/source_hygiene.py` — classify citations as independent, primary, press-wire, directory, or review-needed - `scripts/notability_score.py` — rough article-viability scoring from the citation mix - `scripts/coi_tone_lint.py` — lightweight tone/source risk checker for drafts - `scripts/deletion_risk_check.py` — heuristic rejection/deletion-risk checker - `scripts/citation_fetch_enricher.py` — fetch live metadata from URLs and suggest richer cite templates - `scripts/citation_normalizer.py` — suggest cleaner cite templates and missing metadata - `scripts/coi_rewrite.py` — rewrite PR-ish text into more neutral attributed prose - `scripts/sandbox_publish.py` — sandbox/draft publishing helper for MediaWiki API - `scripts/wikidata_helper.py` — starter statement generator for Wikidata items - `references/red-flags.md` — quick safety checklist for companies, people, and organizations - `references/workflow.md` — recommended script order and interpretation - `references/citation-guidelines.md` — citation cleanup guidance ## Output preferences When showing a proposed edit: - start with the target page title - show the lead first - summarize major sourcing assumptions - call out any unsupported or COI-sensitive areas plainly - recommend sandbox/draft vs mainspace explicitly


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)