How We Review AI Tools
Our editorial process is built on one principle: every recommendation we make is one we would genuinely give to a friend. No sponsored rankings, no pay-to-play placements.
Sourabh Gupta — Author at Teach AI Tools
Author at Teach AI Tools
Sourabh Gupta writes for Teach AI Tools. Research summaries, provider claims, and firsthand observations must be identified separately. Author labels are not independent credential verification.
Our Six Editorial Principles
Independent Research
We identify tools based on market relevance, user demand, and our own expertise — not on who pays us. No tool is reviewed because a company reached out asking for coverage.
Research and firsthand evidence
Research-based guides draw on documentation and other attributed sources. We label an article as a firsthand review only when it includes a dated test record, tasks, settings, outputs or screenshots, and limitations. Older pages without that evidence should not be treated as independently tested.
Structured Scoring
Our assessments use consistent criteria: accuracy, speed, ease of use, pricing value, integration options, and support quality. Scores are not influenced by commercial relationships.
Regular Updates
A publication or modification date is not a guarantee that every fact was rechecked. Time-sensitive prices, licenses, and limits need their own source and verification date.
Affiliate Transparency
Some links earn us a referral commission if you sign up. Affiliate links and sponsored placements should be disclosed near the relevant content. Commercial relationships are not evidence of product quality.
AI assistance and editorial responsibility
AI may assist drafting and research. AI-generated text, images, and summaries are not proof of testing or source verification. The publisher is responsible for checking claims and correcting errors.
Two Editorial Workflows
These are standards for new and revised content. They do not certify that every older article completed a test or source review. Each article must identify its evidence and limitations.
Research-based guide
- Define the reader’s question and the products or workflows being compared.
- Read official documentation and relevant primary sources. Link sources that support the specific claims, and identify provider-reported results.
- Record when time-sensitive features, prices, limits, or terms were checked. Omit precise claims that cannot be supported.
- Explain uncertainty, product differences, and limitations. State when no documented firsthand test record was supplied.
- Review quotations and examples. Use testimonials only with verifiable sources and permission; label illustrative scenarios without inventing named customers.
- Disclose affiliate or sponsored relationships and provide a correction route.
Documented firsthand review
- Record the test date, product version, account or plan, environment, and restrictions.
- Define representative tasks, inputs, settings, acceptance criteria, and comparison conditions before testing.
- Keep outputs, screenshots, errors, retries, and notes readers can inspect. Distinguish the reviewer’s observations from provider claims.
- Measure the complete workflow, including setup, corrections, and human review. Report limitations and results that did not succeed.
- Identify the reviewer and link the dated test record from the article. Do not call an article tested when that evidence is absent.
- Verify time-sensitive product information, disclose relationships, and correct errors when identified.
Corrections & Feedback
If you spot an error — a price that has changed, a feature that no longer exists, or factual inaccuracy — please let us know. We take corrections seriously and update articles promptly. You can reach us at sourabhgupta@teachaitools.blog or use the contact form.
Last updated: October 2, 2026. These standards guide new and revised content. Older articles remain subject to individual evidence review.