Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

6
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
69% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

kitze 💎 🙌 on X

i got tired of syncing skills and commands so last week i made an ~/agents folder which has /skills & commands with each having a sync.json file with config of where to sync (clawdbot, claude code, codex) i got tired of cli so i made an app. integrated w https://t.co/kSwiJeyupn pic.twitter.com/DRdbN

Posted by kitze 💎 🙌
View original →

Perspectives

Both Red and Blue Teams strongly agree on negligible manipulation in the content, viewing it as authentic casual developer sharing of a personal AI workflow hack. Red Team notes absence of hype or motives (low confidence in manipulation at 12%), while Blue Team emphasizes technical specificity and organic patterns (high confidence in authenticity at 96%), converging on a very low manipulation score.

Key Points

  • Overwhelming agreement: No emotional appeals, urgency, tribalism, or promotional elements detected by either team.
  • Content aligns with genuine AI dev community norms, such as relatable anecdotes and technical demos without exaggeration.
  • Absence of beneficiaries, coordinated messaging, or biases supports individual, non-manipulative intent.
  • Technical details (e.g., folder structures, sync scripts) are verifiable and proportionate to tweet format.
  • Both teams recommend identical low score (4/100), slightly below original 6.5/100.

Further Investigation

  • Examine the linked site (spellbook.to) for promotion patterns or ties to the poster.
  • Review the poster's Twitter history for consistent authentic dev sharing vs. sudden promotional shifts.
  • Verify if the ~/agents workflow or sync.sh script appears in public GitHub repos or AI dev forums.
  • Check timing relative to AI agent tooling trends for organic vs. opportunistic posting.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choices presented; open description of workflow hack.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us-vs-them dynamics; neutral technical content without groups or conflicts.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
No good-vs-evil framing; straightforward problem-solution for devs.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic amid AI dev discussions on agent syncing, with no suspicious ties to major unrelated news like Syrian clashes (Jan 10-13); post predates Cowork launch, no distraction patterns.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No similarities to propaganda techniques or campaigns; matches authentic AI tool dev patterns, unlike state disinfo or astroturfing.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No clear beneficiaries; personal dev post mentions spellbook.to integration casually, with similar organic shares from others lacking political or paid promotion evidence.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims of widespread agreement or popularity; individual project share without 'everyone uses this' rhetoric.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 2/5
No pressure for opinion change; part of gradual AI agents trend with community posts, lacking manufactured urgency or bots.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Unique personal folder/app setup, though similar syncing pains noted in dev posts; diverse implementations prevent coordination signs.
Logical Fallacies 1/5
No arguments or reasoning flaws; narrative-free status update.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts or authorities cited; self-made tool without endorsements.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
No data presented; anecdotal personal experience without selective stats.
Framing Techniques 2/5
Mild casual language like 'i got tired of cli so i made an app' shows relatable frustration, but neutral overall.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No critics mentioned or labeled; purely descriptive post.
Context Omission 2/5
Some details omitted like full app source or sync.sh implementation, but typical for casual tweet; prompts shown as examples.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No 'unprecedented' or shocking claims; routine dev frustration addressed with standard folder/sync setup, no hype.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional words; single neutral mention of being 'tired' without reinforcement.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage expressed or evoked; factual share of technical workflow improvement without disconnected claims.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; simply describes personal solution 'i made an ~/agents folder' and app without calls to download or act.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
No fear, outrage, or guilt language present; content casually states 'i got tired of syncing skills and commands' without emotional triggers.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Repetition Doubt Slogans
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else