claim-checker
Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Audits specific factual claims against provided reference documents, labeling each as supported, refuted, or unverified.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- linxumoney/cn-ads-skillstheir own version, first seen Mar 29, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- linxumoney/cn-ads-skills★ 19same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository49 other files it gives its agents.
- bug-reproducerSkill
- command-failure-diagnoserSkill
- config-risk-reviewerSkill
- csv-validatorSkill
- deployment-checklist-makerSkill
- diff-reviewerSkill
- factual-summarizerSkill
- field-extractorSkill
- api-contract-testerSkill
- database-migration-helperSkill
- security-vulnerability-fixerSkill
- git-commit-stagerSkill
- git-conflict-resolverSkill
- github-actions-debuggerSkill
- github-issue-triagerSkill
- github-pr-creatorSkill
- github-pr-reviewerSkill
- go-code-qualitySkill
- go-lint-and-vetSkill
- go-testingSkill
- json-schema-converterSkill
- lint-and-typecheckSkill
- meaning-preserving-editorSkill
- meeting-notes-to-actionsSkill
- minimal-bug-fixSkill
- option-comparatorSkill
- py-code-qualitySkill
- py-lint-and-typecheckSkill
- py-testingSkill
- readme-writerSkill
- regression-test-writerSkill
- release-notes-drafterSkill
- repo-inspectorSkill
- research-briefSkill
- reversible-cleanup-plannerSkill
- rust-clippy-checkSkill
- rust-code-qualitySkill
- rust-testingSkill
- small-refactorSkill
- status-updateSkill
- step-by-step-tutorialSkill
- step-decomposerSkill
- tabular-analyzerSkill
- task-briefSkill
- test-runner-debuggerSkill
- ts-code-qualitySkill
- ts-lint-and-typecheckSkill
- ts-testingSkill
- skill-templateSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
Use this skill when:
- Very specific: line 20
Do not use to write a general summary.
- Very specific: line 21
Do not use to compare competing options.
- Very specific: line 28
If claims is missing: stop and ask: "Please provide the list of claims to verify."
- Very specific: line 29
If reference_documents is missing: stop and ask: "Please provide the reference text to check claims against."
- Very specific: line 30
Do not use external world memory to verify claims if reference documents are silent.
- Distinctive: line 33
Follow these numbered actions:
- Distinctive: line 46
If a claim is partially true and partially false: split into Claim A (Supported) and Claim B (Refuted).
- Very specific: line 47
Never label a claim SUPPORTED without an exact quotation from reference_documents.
- Distinctive: line 77
Stop and ask the user when:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Claim Checker
Audits explicit factual assertions against provided source documents. Categorizes each statement as SUPPORTED, REFUTED, or UNVERIFIED with exact quotation evidence.
1. Purpose
Prevent misinformation and confirm claims before publication or integration. A "Claim" is an assertion of fact. "Evidence" is an exact matching excerpt from reference text.
2. When to Use
Use this skill when:
- Reviewing marketing copy, documentation, or reports against technical specs.
- User asks: "Check if these statements are true according to the docs."
- Pre-release verification of release announcements.
3. When Not to Use
- Do not use to write a general summary; use
factual-summarizer. - Do not use to compare competing options; use
option-comparator.
4. Required Inputs
claims: List of 1 to 10 specific statements to audit.reference_documents: Authoritative text or document excerpts provided as ground truth.
5. Missing-Input Behavior
- If
claimsis missing: stop and ask: "Please provide the list of claims to verify." - If
reference_documentsis missing: stop and ask: "Please provide the reference text to check claims against." - Do not use external world memory to verify claims if reference documents are silent; mark as
UNVERIFIED (Not in provided source).
6. Procedure
Follow these numbered actions:
- Action 1: Number and Isolate Each Claim
- Split compound claims into single verifiable units.
- Action 2: Search Reference Text for Relevant Evidence
- Extract exact quote matching the subject matter.
- Action 3: Assign Verification Label
SUPPORTED: Direct quotation confirms the claim.REFUTED: Direct quotation directly contradicts the claim.UNVERIFIED: Reference text contains no relevant evidence.
- Action 4: Emit Verification Table
- Format per Section 8.
7. Decision Rules
- If a claim is partially true and partially false: split into Claim A (Supported) and Claim B (Refuted).
- Never label a claim SUPPORTED without an exact quotation from
reference_documents.
8. Output Format
Emit the audit using this structured template:
### Claim Verification Audit
| # | Claim | Status | Quoted Evidence from Source |
| :- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | [Claim statement] | **SUPPORTED** | "[Exact quote from source]" |
| 2 | [Claim statement] | **REFUTED** | "[Exact quote showing contradiction]" |
| 3 | [Claim statement] | **UNVERIFIED** | *No mention in provided reference text.* |
#### Audit Summary
- **Total Claims**: [Count]
- **Supported**: [Count] | **Refuted**: [Count] | **Unverified**: [Count]9. Verification Checklist
- Every SUPPORTED or REFUTED claim has an exact quote.
- Claims not in the source are marked UNVERIFIED.
- No assertions are judged based on unstated assumptions.
10. Common Failures and Recovery
| Failure Symptom | Cause | Recovery Action |
| Assuming claim is true | World knowledge bias | Force check: is there a quote in the provided text? If no, label UNVERIFIED. |
| Paraphrasing quotes | Inexact citations | Use verbatim quotation enclosed in quotation marks. |
11. Stop or Escalation Conditions
Stop and ask the user when:
- Reference documents are encrypted or empty.
12. Examples
Example 1: Successful Execution
Input:
Claims:
1. The server supports TLS 1.3.
2. Default port is 8080.
3. Redis is required.
Reference: "The gateway binds to port 8080 by default. It mandates TLS 1.3 for all incoming connections. An optional in-memory caching engine is used; no external cache server is required."Output:
### Claim Verification Audit
| # | Claim | Status | Quoted Evidence from Source |
| :- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | The server supports TLS 1.3 | **SUPPORTED** | "It mandates TLS 1.3 for all incoming connections." |
| 2 | Default port is 8080 | **SUPPORTED** | "The gateway binds to port 8080 by default." |
| 3 | Redis is required | **REFUTED** | "no external cache server is required." |
#### Audit Summary
- **Total Claims**: 3
- **Supported**: 2 | **Refuted**: 1 | **Unverified**: 0Example 2: Ambiguous or Missing Input
Input:
Claims: Python was released in 1991.
Reference: (Empty text)Output:
### Claim Verification Audit
| # | Claim | Status | Quoted Evidence from Source |
| :- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | Python was released in 1991 | **UNVERIFIED** | *Reference document was empty; no source evidence provided.* |
#### Audit Summary
- **Total Claims**: 1
- **Supported**: 0 | **Refuted**: 0 | **Unverified**: 1Example 3: Expected Final Output
Output:
### Claim Verification Audit
| # | Claim | Status | Quoted Evidence from Source |
| :- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | Maximum file upload is 25 MB | **SUPPORTED** | "Payloads exceeding 25 MB will return status 413." |
| 2 | Webhooks retry up to 10 times | **UNVERIFIED** | *No retry parameters mentioned in provided configuration section.* |
#### Audit Summary
- **Total Claims**: 2
- **Supported**: 1 | **Refuted**: 0 | **Unverified**: 1Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

