How to use a Righthand with Bluesky

Quick answer

Use Righthand to prepare a Bluesky account-content review using selected public posts or an owner-supplied snapshot. Keep replies and repost context attached to the observation.

Start with a reviewable deliverable, keeping Bluesky as the accepted home for its records. This guide uses an explicitly approved snapshot or browser read; it does not assume that every provider API action is exposed by your Righthand connection.

Evidence and access

Bluesky publishes HTTP API documentation for author feeds. See the official Bluesky reference. Provider capabilities and Righthand's available tools are separate checks.

Use the approved profile's draft list, cited sources, and conversation links. Retain profile identity and intended reply context. Verify the required tools and owner-approved scope through Righthand integrations; use the supplied packet when a native read is unavailable.

Define the objects and authority

Include these fields in the working input: account handle, stable account identifier when supplied, post URI, time, text, reply context, source link. These are the requested review columns, not a promise that every provider endpoint returns them under those exact names.

A displayed handle can change. Preserve stable references where available and keep public responses under owner review.

Illustrative first-run brief

Use the owner-provided Bluesky snapshot or approved read-only view. Review the supplied account feed sample for launch-related questions. Group questions by topic and propose source-backed answer drafts without publishing. Run once for the agreed sample, using America/Los_Angeles for the review deadline and preserving source timestamps separately. Return the draft in this conversation by Friday at 3 PM Pacific for the community lead to review. Include source references and missing fields. Do not write records, spend money, change permissions, or send external messages. Stop and report an unavailable source rather than substituting another account.

Expected result and verification

A reply referencing an earlier post stays linked to that conversation. The report avoids treating it as a standalone statement.

Open an original post and check account identity and thread context before approving a reply. Record the source cutoff, applied filters, and items excluded from the sample. The reviewer should be able to follow each consequential finding back to an original object. A well-written summary is not evidence that a proposed action happened. If a later write is authorized, verify its specific result separately before changing the task's status.

Illustrative input and draft output

These synthetic entries show the requested review, not live account results or a provider field schema.

Common failure and recovery

A handle change or deleted post can break a saved link. Ask the owner for a verified current reference and label missing content.

If a similar display name creates doubt, ask the owner to verify the profile identifier. Keep the disputed mention out of the draft until resolved.

FAQ

What should the reviewer verify first?

Check profile identity, reply target, links, and claim sources. Display-name resemblance is not enough to identify the intended person or account.

How should a repeat run be scoped?

Record profile references, draft IDs, and the context cutoff. Reopen the relevant conversation before each review, since a reply can become inappropriate after new messages.

For connection and permission details, use Righthand Docs. Review Pricing alongside any separate provider charges before expanding the workflow.