checking-source-claims
Skill33 starsChanged 16 days agoMITView on GitHub
Checks that the way you cite source families, agencies, standards, or borrowed ideas is honest and does not claim too much. Use when public docs, templates, skills, change records, or rollout copy point to outside sources. Do not use for private notes, or for checking whether code actually works.
In this repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- challenge/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- challenge/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- breaking-down-the-workSkill
- briefing-an-agentSkill
- checking-factsSkill
- checking-legal-and-safety-wordingSkill
- checking-release-readinessSkill
- checking-what-a-change-affectsSkill
- choosing-what-to-controlSkill
- closing-stale-packetsSkill
- creating-change-recordsSkill
- deciding-who-decidesSkill
- declaring-intentSkill
- double-checking-before-actingSkill
- handing-off-workSkill
- learning-from-experienceSkill
- organizing-project-foldersSkill
- proving-claimsSkill
- questioning-attitudeSkill
- rating-change-riskSkill
- recording-a-known-good-versionSkill
- recording-what-an-agent-didSkill
- reporting-shared-defectsSkill
- responding-to-incidentsSkill
- reviewing-code-qualitySkill
- running-a-review-panelSkill
- staying-on-missionSkill
- stress-testing-agent-changesSkill
- tracking-deficienciesSkill
- using-nuclear-gradeSkill
- verifying-final-artifactsSkill
- vetting-outside-code-and-modelsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 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.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
Claim checked: every cited source is public and in the source map or marked "public URL needed", and each reference reads as influence or …
- Distinctive: line 47
Remove or negate any wording that implies compliance, approval, or formal assurance.
- Distinctive: line 63
Stop when asked to cite a source that is not public, is proprietary, or is unverified as if it were public lineage.
- Distinctive: line 76
Every file repeats the source details instead of linking to the source map.
≈ “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
Checking Source Claims
Overview
"Source lineage" means showing where an idea came from. Honest lineage keeps public claims clean. It links an idea to a real public source. At the same time, it keeps the repo from sounding like it formally meets that source's rules.
Decision contract
- Claim checked: every cited source is public and in the source map or marked "public URL needed", and each reference reads as influence or idea lineage rather than compliance, certification, or formal assurance.
- Artifact observed: the changed public text against
source-map.md,source-to-concept-crosswalk.md, andcompliance-boundaries.md-> narrowed wording and updated source-map or crosswalk rows. - Decision affected: warn -- whether public/source wording is narrowed to honest influence or idea lineage rather than a compliance claim.
- Failure class: overstated-lineage (an unconfirmed source cited as direct lineage, or a compliance/approval claim outside a disclaimer).
- Next action: downgrade the source to "public URL needed" or reword to influence; wording affecting regulated, customer, or investor trust escalates.
When to Use
- A doc, template, skill, command, or change record cites a source family.
- New standards, frameworks, agencies, or assurance-sounding terms show up.
- A public claim might sound like compliance, certification, approval, or formal verification.
- A dependency, model, API, or vendor claim might get confused with proof from your own repo.
When Not to Use
- The change is private code with no method claim and no source claim.
- A source cannot be made public; use private, project-specific controls outside this public repo.
- The question is whether a cited fact, number, or quotation is true, not whether the citation is worded honestly; use
checking-facts.
Inputs
- The changed public text.
docs/00-standards-foundation/source-map.md.docs/01-field-guide/source-to-concept-crosswalk.md.docs/00-standards-foundation/compliance-boundaries.md.
Process
- Find every cited source family and every assurance-sounding term.
- Confirm each direct source is public, can be linked, and is listed in the source map.
- Sort each reference: is it an influence, an analogy, evidence, a requirement, an authority, or a vendor claim?
- Downgrade any unconfirmed source to "supporting context" or mark it "public URL needed."
- Reword claims as influence, idea lineage, or workflow inspiration.
- Remove or negate any wording that implies compliance, approval, or formal assurance.
Outputs
- Updated source-map or crosswalk rows.
- Narrowed public wording.
- A clear source-lineage note.
Verification
- Source claims point to
source-map.mdor to public URLs. - Public docs never present an unconfirmed source as direct lineage.
- Scans for the boundary phrases find them only in negative or disclaimer sentences.
Escalation
- Stop when asked to cite a source that is not public, is proprietary, or is unverified as if it were public lineage.
- Escalate when the wording could affect regulated, purchasing, customer, or investor trust.
Common Rationalizations
- "Everyone knows what we mean." Public text has to survive a hostile reader.
- "It is only an influence." Then call it an influence, not something you meet.
- "The source probably exists." Verify it or downgrade it.
Red Flags
- A source row has no public URL and no status.
- A doc says "compliant", "approved", "certified", or "formal" outside a negative sentence.
- Every file repeats the source details instead of linking to the source map.
Prompt
Run a Nuclear-grade source-lineage check (where the ideas come from).
Inputs:
- changed public text: <paste/link>
- cited source families: <list>
- source-map rows: <links>
- source or vendor claims used as evidence: <list>
Return:
- a status for each source: verified-public, supporting-context, public-url-needed, or excluded-direct
- the difference between an influence, a source's claim, local proof, a requirement, and an authority
- the wording changes needed so you make no claim of compliance or approval
- the source-map or crosswalk updates
- the validation and scan commandsSource-lineage note
This skill is an original citation-safety workflow for public-source-inspired software methodology. It does not turn cited sources into requirements this repo satisfies.
Does 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.

