Channel Authenticity

Channel Authenticity

Takes a channel (handle / URL / numeric id / name) — or adlink:<id> for a sponsorship drill-down — and returns a 0–100 authenticity score plus ranked red-flag findings. Built and calibrated from real bought-view and comment-farm investigations.

Hard rules

• One mode. Every run does everything. No flags, no opt-in tiers. Groups A, B, and C all run, every time.
• Comment scraping (Group C) is mandatory and never skipped. Metrics and view-curves can be hand-waved ("the algorithm", "we ran ads"); reading what the audience actually says is the only direct proof. A run without it is invalid.
• Data access is CLI-only. Everything goes through tl_cli.py and the tl CLI (tl db pg/fb/es, tl channels similar).
• Do all data processing with the "utf-8" encoding explicitly in all scripts you create.

Setup check

cd .claude/skills/tl-channel-authenticity/scripts
python3 tl_cli.py preflight        # must print "OK"

If this errors with cli_unavailable, tell the user to run tl auth login (or set TL_API_KEY). Comment scraping additionally needs yt-dlp (pip install yt-dlp) — it uses the android InnerTube client so no cookies or API key are required.

How to run (three phases — a classifier subagent sits between two CLI passes)

Phase 1 — collect. From the scripts/ dir:

python3 analyze_channel.py "<handle|url|id|name|adlink:ID>"

This runs Groups A + B + C(rule-based), scrapes ≥10 latest longforms (+ highest-view + most-recently-sponsored), and prints a JSON envelope with state_path, llm_batch_path, and llm_batch_size.

If the ref matches multiple channels (common for names with localized dupes), Phase 1 exits (code 4) with {"error":"ambiguous_channel", "candidates":[{id,name,subscribers}…]} instead of guessing. Show the candidates to the user — they're ordered by subscriber count, highest first (the most likely intended) — let them pick, then re-run Phase 1 with that numeric id.

Phase 2 — classify comments (run the subagent TWICE). Read llm_batch_path (a JSON array of {i, text, author}) and send it to the youtube-comment-classifier agent via the Agent tool (subagent_type: youtube-comment-classifier) twice — two separate calls on the same batch. Prepend one context line: channel niche: cat <content_category>, language <language> (both values are in the envelope). Each call returns a strict JSON array [{"i":N,"label":"organic|generic-template|bot-like|promotional|spam"}]; save each reply verbatim to its own file (e.g. /tmp/ca_llm1.json, /tmp/ca_llm2.json).

Why twice: single-pass LLM labeling wobbles ±10pts, so finalize majority-votes the two passes to keep the reported organic share stable. Sophisticated AI-comment farms read as clean English at normal volume — only the classifier catches them, so this pass is essential.

If the batch is empty (channel had almost no comments), skip the subagent and pass an empty array [] — near-zero comments is itself the loudest signal, and Group C already penalizes it.

Phase 3 — finalize (pass both classifier files):

python3 analyze_channel.py --finalize <state_path> /tmp/ca_llm1.json /tmp/ca_llm2.json

This applies the LLM verdict, computes the composite score, writes the final JSON + markdown report to /tmp, and prints the report. Present that report to the user (it's already formatted — peer comparison, group scores, ranked flags, verdict).

Scoring (see references/scoring.md)

Three groups, each scored 0–100 independently (start at 100, subtract fixed per-flag penalties). Final = simple mean of the three. Two hard overrides force FRAUD_LIKELY (score capped at 39) regardless of the mean: (1) Group C — non-organic audience (<30% organic from the classifier, or a dead comment section); (2) Group B — concealed/misrepresented performance (≥2 sold+published sponsored videos deleted/unlisted, or one with ≥5k views; or ≥3 high-view videos scrubbed with ≥15% of tracked views gone).

Bands: ≥90 CLEAN · ≥70 MINOR_FLAGS · ≥40 MIXED · <40 FRAUD_LIKELY.

What each group checks

• Group A — engagement & peer ratios (engagement_ratios.py, peer_cohort.py): like/comment rates measured against a niche-matched peer baseline, plus audience-size sanity checks across longforms vs shorts.
• Group B — view-curve anomalies + video integrity (view_curves.py, anomaly_detector.py, video_integrity.py): view-over-time curves that don't behave like organic growth (bursts without engagement, guarantee cliffs at round numbers, frozen likes, subs flat while views surge), plus intent-aware detection of deleted/unlisted videos used to conceal or misrepresent performance (benign re-uploads are excluded).
• Group C — comment content (comment_scraper.py, comment_analyzer.py
  • classifier subagent): whether the comments are a real, engaged audience — scarcity vs views, templating and near-duplicates, language mismatch, bot-handle patterns, and the classifier's organic-share verdict.

Full catalogue + thresholds: references/red-flags.md. The exact tl queries each check issues live in the scripts; the underlying channel/video/adlink schema is documented in the tl skill (skills/tl/references/).

After a run

Offer to log the verdict (channel, score, top flags, date) to a "Channel Vetting Log" sheet via the gws skill if the user wants an audit trail. If you discover a new robust signal, add it to references/red-flags.md and a penalty to references/scoring.md (self-improvement).