Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

7
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
78% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Jarrod Watts on X

Introducing Claude Delegator! A Claude Code plugin that lets you use GPT 5.2 powered subagents directly within Claude Code. Ask GPT 5.2 (via codex) to architect your code, perform security audits, or make any other changes to your codebase. Easy installation guide below ↓ pic.twitter.com/9Wf0OX2399

Posted by Jarrod Watts
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choices posed; focuses on optional enhancements like 'ask GPT 5.2 (via codex) to architect your code.'
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us vs. them dynamics; promotes collaboration between Claude and GPT models without rivalry.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
No good vs. evil framing; presents practical integration without oversimplification.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic shortly after GPT-5.2's Dec 2025 release, with no suspicious correlation to major Jan 9-12 events like Anthropic's healthcare tools; no historical disinformation patterns match.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No parallels to propaganda playbooks or psyops; searches show typical AI dev tool hype, not coordinated disinformation.
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
Vague benefit to author Jarrod Watts via GitHub promo for his @abstractchain project, but no evidence of paid ops, political campaigns, or aligned funding sources.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims of widespread agreement or popularity; does not suggest 'everyone' uses or endorses it.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No urgency or pressure for opinion change; limited organic shares in AI coding community show no astroturfing or manufactured momentum.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Similar mentions on X reference the original post with varied takes (e.g., Japanese summary, workflow lists), but no identical phrasing across outlets indicating coordination.
Logical Fallacies 1/5
No flawed reasoning; straightforward feature listing without arguments.
Authority Overload 1/5
No questionable experts or authorities cited; relies on self-description of plugin capabilities.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data presented at all, selective or otherwise; purely descriptive.
Framing Techniques 2/5
Promotional phrasing like 'GPT 5.2 powered subagents directly within Claude Code' emphasizes seamless integration benefits with positive bias.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No mention of critics or labeling dissent; purely introductory without counterarguments.
Context Omission 3/5
Omits details on GPT-5.2 subscription costs, setup prerequisites, or delegation limitations/risks; assumes user knowledge of Claude Code and Codex.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No 'unprecedented' or shocking claims; 'Introducing Claude Delegator!' is standard for new software releases.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional triggers; description focuses factually on features like 'architect your code, perform security audits.'
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage expressed or manufactured; lacks any criticism or controversy, just positive promotion.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; simply offers 'Easy installation guide below ↓' without pressure.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
No fear, outrage, or guilt language present; content neutrally introduces 'Claude Delegator' as a functional plugin.

Identified Techniques

Name Calling, Labeling Loaded Language Reductio ad hitlerum Appeal to fear-prejudice Slogans
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else