Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

40
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
70% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Jarrod Watts on X

· Add the marketplace /plugin marketplace add jarrodwatts/claude-delegator · Install the plugin /plugin install claude-delegator · Run the setup: /claude-delegator:setup Github: https://t.co/oyAArFUG3n

Posted by Jarrod Watts
Linked Content
https://github.com/jarrodwatts/claude-delegator
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 3/5
No binary choices; offers options like 'Dual mode: analyze (read-only) or implement (write)'.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 3/5
No us vs. them; promotes integration of Claude and GPT tools neutrally.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
No good vs. evil; balanced table of experts and 'When NOT to delegate' like 'Simple file operations'.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Searches show announcement on Jan 10 aligns with organic AI tool releases, unrelated to major events like US news or Anthropic's healthcare tools; no strategic distraction evident.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No resemblance to propaganda; mirrors legitimate Claude Code ecosystem plugins like claude-hud, with no disinfo reports.
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
Jarrodwatts gains visibility for his GitHub repo and projects like @abstractchain via open-source popularity; no political or paid elements found.
Bandwagon Effect 3/5
No 'everyone agrees' claims; lists features individually without implying universal adoption.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 2/5
Quick traction in AI community (1700+ likes rapidly) but driven by genuine interest in Claude plugins; no forced urgency or astroturfing.
Phrase Repetition 3/5
X reposts and sites like Medium repeat exact phrasing and steps from original post; typical for tech launches, not suspicious coordination.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Straightforward instructions without flawed reasoning; logical progression of steps.
Authority Overload 3/5
No cited experts; relies on tool descriptions like 'Security Analyst: Vulnerabilities, threat modeling'.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
No data presented; all descriptive features without selective stats.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Positive bias with 'Why It Matters' column and phrases like 'Right specialist for each problem type', but factual overall.
Suppression of Dissent 3/5
No mention of critics; includes 'When NOT to delegate' showing balanced use.
Context Omission 3/5
Provides GitHub link, requirements like 'Requires Codex CLI', and setup guidance; no crucial omissions.
Novelty Overuse 3/5
No 'unprecedented' or shocking claims; describes features factually as '5 domain experts' and 'Auto-routing' without exaggeration.
Emotional Repetition 3/5
No repeated emotional triggers; focuses on practical tables like '| What You Get | Why It Matters |' without redundancy.
Manufactured Outrage 3/5
No outrage at all; purely promotional and technical, e.g., 'Each expert has a distinct specialty and can advise OR implement.'
Urgent Action Demands 3/5
No demands for immediate action; provides calm steps like 'Step 1: Add the marketplace /plugin marketplace add jarrodwatts/claude-delegator' without pressure.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
No fear, outrage, or guilt language; content is instructional with neutral phrases like 'Claude now routes complex tasks to GPT experts automatically.'

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Repetition Name Calling, Labeling Black-and-White Fallacy Appeal to Authority

What to Watch For

Notice the emotional language used - what concrete facts support these claims?
This messaging appears coordinated. Look for independent sources with different framing.
This content frames an 'us vs. them' narrative. Consider perspectives from 'the other side'.
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?

This content shows some manipulation indicators. Consider the source and verify key claims.

Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else