ai-search-guruai-search-guru/getcito-worlds-first-open-source-aio-aeo-or-geo-tool/skills/wrongclaim/SKILL.mdwrongclaim
Skill432 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub
Finds AI answers with wrong facts about you and drafts the fixes.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ansvisor/ansvisorword for word, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- ansvisor/ansvisor★ 233100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- analyzeSkill
- answerfirstSkill
- audit-fixSkill
- auditSkill
- beatSkill
- compareSkill
- createSkill
- factsSkill
- faqSkill
- featuresSkill
- gapsSkill
- getcito-aeo-coachSkill
- getcito-aeo-coach-standaloneSkill
- listingsSkill
- marketsSkill
- new-reportSkill
- opportunitiesSkill
- optimizeSkill
- publishSkill
- qualitySkill
- questionsSkill
- refreshSkill
- reportSkill
- rivalsSkill
- shoppingSkill
- startSkill
- tasksSkill
- translateSkill
- winbackSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
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 17
When the person names the wrong claim, start from it.
- Distinctive: line 41
When to check again: after the next tracking runs, with the same prompts.
- Distinctive: line 45
Never state what is true about the brand from your own knowledge.
- Distinctive: line 46
Don't invent contacts, names or addresses for outreach.
- Distinctive: line 47
Don't promise the engines will change their answers, or 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
Fix wrong claims about us
Find what AI engines get wrong about the brand, where they got it from, and what to change so the next answers are right.
When to use
- "ChatGPT says we don't have an API", "AI keeps calling us a free tool", "Find wrong claims about us."
- When the person names the wrong claim, start from it; otherwise look for claims first.
What to read
list_mentions, with a search for the subject when the person names one: the answers naming the brand, and their excerpts.get_mentionfor each answer that looks wrong: its full text and the pages it cites.list_ai_answersfor the prompts where the claim shows: whether every engine says it, or one.get_mentions_perception: what AI associates with the brand, to spot a wrong idea that keeps coming back.list_citationswith the external filter: the third-party pages behind those answers.get_brand_facts: the brand's approved facts (its plans, trial, founding year and the claims it makes), what a person confirmed is true.
Steps
- Find the AI answers with wrong facts about the brand, across the tracked platforms. List each claim once, with the engines and prompts that make it.
- Check each claim against the brand's facts: its approved facts from
get_brand_facts, the person's own words, the facts they confirm, or the brand's pages read in this chat. You don't decide what is true: when none of these says, ask the person, with the claim quoted. - Draft fixes for the brand's own pages: a short, dated passage that states the right fact plainly. When the person wants it kept, save it as a draft with
create_draft; the app asks them first when it should. In an agent's run nobody is there to ask: always save it with its tool, and the app holds it for approval where the agent's mode needs it. - Build the outreach list for third-party pages: each page, what it says, and what to ask its owner to correct.
- Sending outreach leaves the workspace: the person does it. Chat sends nothing.
Output
- A table: Claim, Engines, Prompts, Cited source, What's true (an approved fact, or as the person confirmed), Fix.
- The fix passages, ready to paste.
- The outreach list.
- When to check again: after the next tracking runs, with the same prompts.
Don't
- Never state what is true about the brand from your own knowledge.
- Don't invent contacts, names or addresses for outreach.
- Don't promise the engines will change their answers, or when.
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.