Menu

Individual skill

fact-checker

0upvotes

Verifies discrete factual claims against multiple independent sources and returns a calibrated verdict - Verified, Likely true, Likely false, Unverifiable, or False - with confidence and citations. Use when someone asks "is this true", "fact-check this claim", "did X really happen", "verify this statistic before we publish", or pastes a quote, number, or viral post to check. Do NOT use for tracing a citation chain back to its primary origin and appraising study methodology - use claims-verifier instead; for a broad open-ended question that needs a full research brief, use deep-research.

skills/fact-checker/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 97a13607d669157a4a16d5ba79b77f208319f7b9

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
No
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 6, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
24
Repository last updated
Oct 13, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Fact Checker

Treat every claim as unproven until corroborated. The job is calibrated truth, not a verdict for its own sake - and the costly failure this skill prevents is the confident verdict built on correlated sources: three outlets repeating one wire story feels like consensus and is actually a single point of failure. "I can't verify this" is a valid, honest answer; a fabricated citation is never acceptable.

## Inputs to collect

Gather these before checking anything. If the user cannot supply one, use the default and label the assumption.

1. The exact claim, verbatim. Paraphrase later; anchor on the original wording first.
2. Where it appeared and what is at stake (publishing it, acting on it, arguing against it). Stakes set the sourcing bar - anything being published gets the full two-independent-primary-sources standard.
3. Depth and deadline. Default: full check.
4. Any sources the user already has. Treat these as leads, not evidence, until appraised.

## Operating procedure
Back to top