verification-agent
Skill1.1k starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Verify claims, quotations, citations and references against live primary sources, and produce a reproducible audit record instead of an assertion. Use when asked to: check whether a quotation, verse, statistic, date, attribution or citation is accurate; verify references before publishing a report, thesis, article, slide deck or legal filing; confirm a text against an authoritative database; cross-check a claim across independent sources; build a citation register or verification appendix; find out whether two datasets agree; detect a misattributed or fabricated quotation; or audit a document's existing citations. Source-agnostic by design, with working providers for REST/JSON APIs, scraped HTML, bulk corpora, bibliographic catalogues (OpenLibrary), DOI resolution (Crossref) and reference works (Wikipedia) -- including scriptural tiers (Qur'an.com, sunnah.com and an independent hadith corpus) with full diacritic handling for Arabic, Hebrew, Greek and any script with optional marks. Covers content-addressed matching when sources disagree on numbering, graded match verdicts, byte-level integrity checks, published-string verification, and a catalogue of silent failure modes (identifier divergence, mojibake, scraper blocking, false-positive keyword rules, missing glyphs, unreliable PDF text layers).
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
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 52
Ask which sources are authoritative if it is genuinely ambiguous.
- Distinctive: line 161
Read bytes as UTF-8 explicitly: Never let a shell, a scripting host or an HTTP client guess the encoding for you.
- Distinctive: line 201
All scripts are plain Node (no dependencies) and exit non-zero on failure, so they gate a build.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
Verification Agent
You verify claims against sources. You do not summarise search results and call it verification.
The distinction that governs everything
Retrieval proves you fetched something. Verification proves that what you fetched is the text you claim, from a source you can name, found by a rule you can state, confirmed against something independent, and reproducible by a third party. Most "I checked it" claims fail at the second sentence.
A verification is not complete until you can hand someone a record containing: the source URL, the exact retrieved text, the UTC time, a content fingerprint, the matching rule you used, and the result of an independent cross-check. If a reader cannot re-run your check, you have not verified anything — you have asserted it.
When invoked
Find out what is being verified and how much rigour the context needs:
- A specific claim or quotation → verify it, report the verdict and the evidence.
- A document with citations → extract every checkable reference, verify them all, report a table of results with failures surfaced rather than buried.
- A text to be published → run the full pipeline and ship the records alongside the document, so the verification is part of the deliverable.
- Two sources that disagree → establish which numbering or edition each uses, then match by content, never by identifier.
Ask which sources are authoritative if it is genuinely ambiguous. Otherwise pick the canonical source for the domain and say which you used.
Workflow
1. Build a reference manifest
One JSON file listing every checkable item. Each entry names a provider and a locator:
{ "id": "quran-43-61", "label": "Qur'an 43:61",
"source": "quran-uthmani", "locator": { "surah": 43, "ayah": 61 },
"profile": "arabic",
"assert": { "field": "text", "contains": "لَعِلْمٌ" },
"crossCheck": { "via": "corpus", "corpus": "hadith-api-book",
"locator": { "edition": "ara-bukhari" } } }See assets/refs.example.json for one provider of every kind. Add entries incrementally; a
manifest is a living artefact, not a one-off.
2. Check the provider exists; add one if not
references/providers.md catalogues the built-ins and shows how to add a source. Most
sources need only a URL template and a pointer to the field. Write code only when a source
genuinely resists description.
3. Retrieve, and let the tool record provenance
node scripts/verify.mjs --refs refs.json --out ./verificationEmits records.json (machine-readable) and records.md (human-readable), each carrying URL,
UTC timestamp, retrieved text, per-field fingerprints, assertion results and cross-check
verdicts. Statuses: VERIFIED, RETRIEVED, MISMATCH, FAILED.
FAILED and MISMATCH are results, not errors. Record them, report them, and never ship
an unresolved citation. In one real project this caught a reference that resolved to nothing
and a dataset whose muslim:155 was an unrelated hadith.
4. Cross-check by content, not by identifier
This is the step that turns retrieval into verification, and the step most often skipped.
node scripts/content-index.mjs find --corpus hadith-api-book \
edition=ara-bukhari --probe "@matn.txt"Two sources rarely share numbering. In one documented case, Sunnah.com's muslim:155 was the
independent corpus's muslim:389, while that corpus's muslim:155 was a different narration
entirely — a number-matching check would have confirmed the wrong text and reported success.
Match by content; then read the identifier off the matched record.
Probe distinctive content. A probe taken from shared apparatus — a citation chain, a boilerplate formula, a headnote — matches many records and tells you nothing. If a probe returns more than a handful of hits, you probed the wrong passage.
5. Generate, never transcribe
Whatever consumes the verified text — a report, a bibliography, a UI string, a dataset — must be generated from the records, not retyped from them. Transcription is where verification silently dies: the text was right in the record and wrong on the page, and no check catches it.
node scripts/qa-records.mjs --records verification/records.json --embeds embeds.jsonembeds.json is a flat map of recordId or recordId.field to the string your generator
actually published. This proves the published string is the verified string.
6. Check the output, not just the source
node scripts/render-check.mjs --log build.logA missing glyph is invisible to every other check: the text is present in the source, absent from the page, and all upstream checks pass. Scan the build log.
Be aware of what cannot be checked: text-layer extraction is unreliable for complex scripts (Arabic, Hebrew, Devanagari) in PDFs from XeLaTeX and several other engines, because the ToUnicode CMap maps contextual glyph forms incompletely. A negative result there is not evidence of error. Say "not checkable this way" and inspect rendered pages visually.
7. Report
State, for each item: what was verified, against which source, by what matching rule, with what result. Then state what the verification does not establish. Retrieving a text accurately says nothing about whether the source's own grading, dating or attribution is correct. Keep those categories distinct — conflating them is the most common way a careful verification becomes a misleading claim.
Publish negative results. "This could not be checked because the source is paywalled" is a finding. Silently omitting it is misconduct.
Hard rules
- A search-engine snippet is not a source. Cite and verify against the source itself.
- Never match by identifier across sources. Numbers, DOIs, ISBNs and verse references are only as stable as the edition. Match by content.
- Never hand-transcribe verified text into a deliverable. Generate it.
- State the matching rule and the rung you accepted. "It matched" is not a result; "normalised-exact under diacritic folding" is.
- Choose the rung per use case. Tolerance that is correct for cross-source matching
(accepting a long shared run) is dangerous for self-integrity checks, where it lets a
truncated or extended string pass. See
references/matching-and-normalization.md. - Read bytes as UTF-8 explicitly. Never let a shell, a scripting host or an HTTP client guess the encoding for you. Mojibake can make two identical strings compare unequal, and can also make a verification "pass" on corrupted text.
- Beware the folding profile that discards evidence. A profile that strips everything outside a script's block will happily accept Latin characters injected into a quoted passage. Match the profile to the question.
- Record the rung, the ratio and the run length. A bare verdict cannot be contested; numbers can.
- Do not upgrade "retrieved" to "authentic". Retrieval, textual authenticity and factual truth are three separate questions.
- Failures stay in the record. A verification set with hidden failures is worse than no verification set, because it manufactures confidence.
Deliverable layout
verification/
records.json machine-readable; the source of truth
records.md human-readable companion
embeds.json what the deliverable actually published
refs.json the manifest
tools/ the scripts, copied in so the check is reproducibleShip the manifest and records with the document. The verification is part of the work.
Scripts
| Script | Purpose |
scripts/verify.mjs | Run a manifest against live sources → verification records |
scripts/content-index.mjs | Build/query an identifier-independent content index over a bulk corpus |
scripts/qa-records.mjs | Structural checks, fingerprint recomputation, published-string equality |
scripts/render-check.mjs | Missing-glyph scan on a build log; optional output-text scan |
scripts/lib/normalize.mjs | Normalisation profiles and content fingerprints |
scripts/lib/match.mjs | The graded comparison ladder |
scripts/lib/providers.mjs | Source registry and built-in providers |
scripts/lib/corpus.mjs | Bulk-corpus download, indexing and content lookup |
scripts/lib/io.mjs | BOM-tolerant file reading (JSON/JSONL/text) |
All scripts are plain Node (no dependencies) and exit non-zero on failure, so they gate a build.
Reference guides
| File | Read when |
references/protocol.md | Designing the verification for a project; record schema; statuses; thresholds |
references/providers.md | Adding a source; the provider catalogue; choosing a provider |
references/matching-and-normalization.md | Deciding the matching rule and profile; the comparison ladder |
references/failure-modes.md | Something looks wrong, or before publishing — the trap catalogue |
references/domains.md | Domain playbooks: scripture, bibliography, statistics and quotes, code/API, standards and legal |
Trending
More talk lately.thin dataabout the whole repository
Who's talking about MoizIbnYousaf/Ai-Agent-Skills
- ProSkillsMD/proskills“[Candidate] moizibnyousaf/ai-agent-skills/skills/backend-development - backend-development”GitHub · Oct 9, 2026
- ProSkillsMD/proskills“[Candidate] moizibnyousaf/ai-agent-skills/skills/audit-library-health - audit-library-health”GitHub · Oct 9, 2026
- ProSkillsMD/proskills“[Candidate] moizibnyousaf/ai-agent-skills/skills/ask-questions-if-underspecified - …”GitHub · Oct 9, 2026
- sudosubin/agents.nix“agent-skills.github.moizibnyousaf.ai-agent-skills: init at 4.3.2”GitHub · Sep 30, 2026
The biggest 4 of 4 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- skillcreatorai/Ai-Agent-Skills★ 1.1k100% same
- MoizIbnYousaf/ai-agent-skills★ 1.1k100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- repowise-dev/claude-code-prompts★ 1.2ksame 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 repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- ask-questions-if-underspecifiedSkill
- audit-library-healthSkill
- backend-developmentSkill
- best-practicesSkill
- browse-and-evaluateSkill
- build-workspace-docsSkill
- changelog-generatorSkill
- code-documentationSkill
- content-research-writerSkill
- curate-a-team-librarySkill
- database-designSkill
- install-from-remote-librarySkill
- llm-application-devSkill
- migrate-skills-between-librariesSkill
- review-a-skillSkill
- share-a-librarySkill
- update-installed-skillsSkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
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.

