Auto-Moderate What Users Post

Guide the user through building AI content moderation — classify user-generated content, score severity, and route decisions (auto-approve, human-review, auto-reject). The pattern: classify, score, route.

When you need content moderation

User-generated content (comments, posts, reviews, messages)
Community platforms and forums
Marketplace listings (product descriptions, seller profiles)
Chat and messaging features
Any surface where users create content that others see

Step 1: Define your moderation policy

Ask the user:

What content do you need to catch? (hate speech, spam, NSFW, harassment, self-harm, illegal activity, PII)
What are the severity levels? (warning, remove, ban)
What's the tolerance for false positives? (over-moderating frustrates users)
Is human review in the loop? (auto-only vs. auto + human escalation)

Step 2: Build the moderator

Classification + severity scoring + routing decision:

python

import dspy
from typing import Literal

VIOLATIONS = Literal[
    "safe", "spam", "hate_speech", "harassment",
    "violence", "nsfw", "self_harm", "illegal",
]

class ModerateContent(dspy.Signature):
    """Assess user-generated content against platform policies."""
    content: str = dspy.InputField(desc="user-generated content to moderate")
    platform_context: str = dspy.InputField(desc="where this content appears, e.g. 'product review'")
    violation_type: VIOLATIONS = dspy.OutputField()
    severity: Literal["none", "low", "medium", "high"] = dspy.OutputField()
    explanation: str = dspy.OutputField(desc="brief reason for the decision")

class ContentModerator(dspy.Module):
    def __init__(self):
        self.assess = dspy.ChainOfThought(ModerateContent)

    def forward(self, content, platform_context="social media post"):
        result = self.assess(content=content, platform_context=platform_context)

        # Route based on severity
        if result.severity == "high":
            decision = "remove"
        elif result.severity == "medium":
            decision = "human_review"
        elif result.severity == "low":
            decision = "warn"
        else:
            decision = "approve"

        return dspy.Prediction(
            violation_type=result.violation_type,
            severity=result.severity,
            decision=decision,
            explanation=result.explanation,
        )

# Usage
moderator = ContentModerator()
result = moderator(content="Great product, works exactly as described!")
print(result.decision)  # "approve"

result = moderator(content="This seller is a scammer, I'll find where they live")
print(result.decision)  # "remove"
print(result.violation_type)  # "harassment"

Step 3: Multi-label moderation

Content can violate multiple policies at once (e.g., spam and contains PII):

python

VIOLATION_TYPES = ["safe", "spam", "hate_speech", "harassment", "violence", "nsfw", "self_harm", "illegal"]

class MultiLabelModerate(dspy.Signature):
    """Flag all policy violations in user content. Content may have multiple violations."""
    content: str = dspy.InputField()
    platform_context: str = dspy.InputField()
    violations: list[str] = dspy.OutputField(desc=f"all that apply from: {VIOLATION_TYPES}")
    severity: Literal["none", "low", "medium", "high"] = dspy.OutputField(
        desc="overall severity based on the worst violation"
    )
    explanation: str = dspy.OutputField()

class MultiLabelModerator(dspy.Module):
    def __init__(self):
        self.assess = dspy.ChainOfThought(MultiLabelModerate)

    def forward(self, content, platform_context=""):
        result = self.assess(content=content, platform_context=platform_context)

        # Validate that returned violations are from the allowed set
        dspy.Assert(
            all(v in VIOLATION_TYPES for v in result.violations),
            f"Violations must be from: {VIOLATION_TYPES}",
        )

        return result

Step 4: Hard blocks with assertions

For zero-tolerance patterns, don't even ask the LM — block instantly with pattern matching:

python

import re

class StrictModerator(dspy.Module):
    def __init__(self):
        self.assess = dspy.ChainOfThought(ModerateContent)

    def forward(self, content, platform_context=""):
        # Pattern-based hard blocks (instant, no LM needed)
        dspy.Assert(
            not re.search(r"\b\d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4}\b", content),
            "Content contains SSN pattern — auto-reject",
        )
        dspy.Assert(
            not re.search(
                r"\b[A-Za-z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Za-z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z|a-z]{2,}\b",
                content,
            ),
            "Content contains email addresses — redact before posting",
        )
        dspy.Assert(
            not re.search(r"\b\d{16}\b", content),
            "Content contains potential credit card number — auto-reject",
        )

        # LM-based assessment for everything else
        return self.assess(content=content, platform_context=platform_context)

Pattern-based blocks are faster, cheaper, and more reliable than LM-based detection for well-defined patterns (SSNs, credit cards, emails). Use regex for structure, LMs for semantics.

Step 5: Confidence-based routing

Route uncertain decisions to human reviewers instead of making bad calls:

python

class ConfidentModerate(dspy.Signature):
    """Moderate content and rate your confidence in the assessment."""
    content: str = dspy.InputField()
    platform_context: str = dspy.InputField()
    violation_type: VIOLATIONS = dspy.OutputField()
    severity: Literal["none", "low", "medium", "high"] = dspy.OutputField()
    confidence: float = dspy.OutputField(desc="0.0 to 1.0 — how sure are you about this assessment?")
    explanation: str = dspy.OutputField()

class ConfidentModerator(dspy.Module):
    def __init__(self, confidence_threshold=0.7):
        self.assess = dspy.ChainOfThought(ConfidentModerate)
        self.confidence_threshold = confidence_threshold

    def forward(self, content, platform_context=""):
        result = self.assess(content=content, platform_context=platform_context)

        # Validate confidence range
        dspy.Assert(
            0.0 <= result.confidence <= 1.0,
            "Confidence must be between 0.0 and 1.0",
        )

        # Route based on confidence + severity
        if result.confidence < self.confidence_threshold:
            decision = "human_review"  # uncertain → always escalate
        elif result.severity == "high":
            decision = "remove"
        elif result.severity == "medium":
            decision = "human_review"
        elif result.severity == "low":
            decision = "warn"
        else:
            decision = "approve"

        return dspy.Prediction(
            violation_type=result.violation_type,
            severity=result.severity,
            confidence=result.confidence,
            decision=decision,
            explanation=result.explanation,
        )

Step 6: Metrics and optimization

Define moderation metrics

python

def moderation_metric(example, prediction, trace=None):
    """Weighted score: type matters more than severity."""
    type_correct = float(prediction.violation_type == example.violation_type)
    severity_correct = float(prediction.severity == example.severity)
    return 0.7 * type_correct + 0.3 * severity_correct

Per-category metrics (more useful than overall accuracy)

python

def make_category_metric(category):
    """Create a precision metric for a specific violation category."""
    def metric(example, prediction, trace=None):
        # Did we correctly identify this category?
        if example.violation_type == category:
            return float(prediction.violation_type == category)  # recall
        else:
            return float(prediction.violation_type != category)  # precision
    return metric

# Track each category separately
hate_speech_metric = make_category_metric("hate_speech")
spam_metric = make_category_metric("spam")

Optimize the moderator

python

# Prepare labeled training data
trainset = [
    dspy.Example(
        content="Buy cheap watches at spam-site.com!!!",
        platform_context="product review",
        violation_type="spam",
        severity="medium",
    ).with_inputs("content", "platform_context"),
    dspy.Example(
        content="This product changed my life, highly recommend!",
        platform_context="product review",
        violation_type="safe",
        severity="none",
    ).with_inputs("content", "platform_context"),
    # 50-200 labeled examples for good optimization
]

optimizer = dspy.MIPROv2(metric=moderation_metric, auto="medium")
optimized = optimizer.compile(moderator, trainset=trainset)

Step 7: Handle tricky cases

Brief notes on content that's hard to moderate correctly:

Sarcasm and satire — "Oh sure, what a great product" isn't hate speech. Context matters. The
```
platform_context
```
field helps here.
Quoting to criticize — "The seller said 'you're an idiot'" is reporting harassment, not committing it. Include instructions in your signature to distinguish.
Code snippets — Variable names or test strings might contain offensive words. If your platform has code, add a code-detection step before moderation.
Non-English content — LMs handle major languages well but may miss nuance in less-common languages. Consider language-specific test sets.
Adversarial evasion — Users will try to bypass moderation (leetspeak, Unicode tricks, word splitting). Test your moderator with
```
/ai-testing-safety
```
.

Tips

False positives hurt more than false negatives. Over-moderation kills user engagement. Tune your confidence threshold to minimize false positives, especially for borderline content.
Build separate metrics per category. You care more about catching hate speech (high harm) than catching mild spam (low harm).
Use a stronger model for uncertain cases. Route low-confidence decisions from GPT-4o-mini to GPT-4o for a second opinion.
Log every decision. Moderator decisions should be reviewable and auditable. See
```
/ai-monitoring
```
for production logging patterns.
Test your moderator adversarially. Users will try to evade moderation. Run
```
/ai-testing-safety
```
against your moderator.
Start permissive, tighten later. It's easier to add restrictions than to regain user trust after over-moderating.

Additional resources

Use
```
/ai-sorting
```
for general classification patterns (moderation is classification + routing)
Use
```
/ai-checking-outputs
```
for output guardrails on your own AI's responses
Use
```
/ai-testing-safety
```
to adversarially test your moderator
Use
```
/ai-monitoring
```
to track moderation quality in production
See
```
examples.md
```
for complete worked examples

ai-moderating-content

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content

Auto-Moderate What Users Post

When you need content moderation

Step 1: Define your moderation policy

Step 2: Build the moderator

Step 3: Multi-label moderation

Step 4: Hard blocks with assertions

Step 5: Confidence-based routing

Step 6: Metrics and optimization

Define moderation metrics

Per-category metrics (more useful than overall accuracy)

Optimize the moderator

Step 7: Handle tricky cases

Tips

Additional resources