Show Readers Who Is Responsible for the Advice

An author's name on an AI skill should tell readers whose method they are using, where that method came from, and who maintains it. It should also distinguish the material the author reviewed from the individual responses an AI generates.

A useful trust page answers those questions with links and specific statements. A portrait, an impressive biography, or a badge cannot do the same job on its own. Readers need enough information to check the relationship between the person, the book, and the product before relying on it.

The checklist below is an original publishing resource. The filled example is fictional; it demonstrates what to disclose without suggesting that any particular platform automatically verifies identities or reviews advice.

In a firsthand account originally published in August 2023, author and publishing commentator Jane Friedman described books she had not written appearing under her name. She wrote:

“Whoever’s doing this is obviously preying on writers who trust my name and think I’ve actually written these books.”

Her updates reported that the titles were removed from Amazon and Goodreads. The episode is historical, and her account is about falsely attributed books, not a test of AI skill platforms. It nevertheless illustrates why a reader should be able to verify an offer beyond the name displayed on it. Friedman's account and updates

For your own product, link to it from a place readers already associate with you: your author website, established newsletter, or publisher profile where you control the relevant information. Link back from the product to that same identity. This creates a practical verification route. It does not guarantee that impersonation is impossible.

These are publishing recommendations, not a certification standard. Use only facts you can substantiate. If a date, review, or qualification is unknown, investigate it or leave it out rather than filling the space with an authoritative-sounding claim.

Google's published guidance also recommends accurate bylines where readers would expect them and useful disclosure of AI involvement. That is a presentation principle, not a promise of ranking. Google's guidance on AI-generated content

An author can have relevant experience without authorizing a particular AI product. A publisher can sell a book without having reviewed a companion skill. A collaborator can help convert a method without becoming its original creator.

Describe each relationship separately. “Based on the author's published method” does not establish that the author approved the implementation. If your product is independent commentary, identify it as independent commentary. If it is an authorized collaboration, state the actual authorization and obtain agreement on that wording.

Likewise, make credentials specific to the task. An author's experience simplifying equipment instructions may be relevant to a skill that reviews a draft instruction sheet. It does not establish competence to certify the equipment's safety. The scope statement should make that distinction before a reader reaches a consequential decision.

Avoid borrowing authority from institutions by placing their names beside the product without explaining the relationship. A past speaking engagement, a former employer, and a current endorsement are different facts.

Imagine Evelyn has written a book about making technical instructions easier to follow. She is preparing a companion that helps authors review a draft instruction sheet. This is a proposed card, not a real person's biography or evidence of a completed review.

Method owner: Evelyn, author of the relevant book. Insert the real author-page link and exact book edition before publishing.

Purpose: Help a writer identify missing prerequisites, ambiguous actions, and unclear completion signals in an instruction sheet.

Boundary: The companion reviews the clarity of the supplied text. It does not verify equipment specifications, certify safety, or establish that the instructions are correct in the physical setting.

Production roles: Name the person who wrote the skill instructions and any collaborators who checked examples. Describe what each actually did.

Review record: Record the revision, materials reviewed, reviewer, and date after the review happens. Do not publish a completed-review claim while this field is still a plan.

AI involvement: The companion generates responses from the reader's input and its instructions. Evelyn has not personally reviewed each generated response.

Corrections: Insert the real reporting route. Ask readers to identify the relevant step and share only the information needed to explain the problem.

The card's strength comes from its limits as well as its identity. A reader can understand what the author contributed, what remains unverified, and where to raise a concern.

A review history does not need to reproduce every edit. It should help a reader interpret the version in front of them. A short entry can state that the prerequisite questions changed, that the author checked those questions against the named chapter, and that older examples still need review if that is true.

Do not use a recent page-edit date as evidence that the whole method was reviewed recently. Correcting a link is different from rechecking the skill's reasoning. Label the event that actually occurred.

When you improve the method itself, the guide to writing an agent skill can help you express the steps readers will use. The trust page should accurately describe that finished work; it should not compensate for missing instructions.

Before sharing the product, ask someone unfamiliar with the project to answer three questions from its public pages: Who is responsible for the method? What did they actually review? How would I verify that this is their offer?

Treat uncertainty as an editing task. Add the missing link, clarify the collaborator's role, or narrow a sweeping claim. Record this as a proposed review until someone has actually completed it.

If you have an established method and want help turning it into a skill readers can use, visit Skillfully and choose Book onboarding. Bring the source material and a clear account of who owns, reviews, and maintains it.