Fact Checker
Run a four-step evidence workflow on any claim—identify assertion, required proof, sources, and a rated verdict before you ship copy or decisions.
Overview
Fact Checker is an agent skill most often used in Idea (also Validate, Launch, Grow) that systematically verifies claims with evidence-based analysis and confidence-rated conclusions.
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps --skill fact-checkerWhat is this skill?
- Four-step verification: identify claim, required evidence, evaluate sources, rate accuracy with confidence
- Separates factual assertions from opinion and implicit sub-claims
- Checks authoritative and primary data with dates and context
- Built for misinformation, disinformation, viral rumors, and statistic accuracy
- Trigger phrases: fact check, verify, is this true, validate claims
- 4-step verification process: claim, evidence need, evaluation, rating
Adoption & trust: 2.7k installs on skills.sh; 114k GitHub stars; 3/3 security scanners passed (skills.sh audits).
What problem does it solve?
You hear a bold stat or viral claim and need to know if it is verifiable before you reuse it in product or marketing decisions.
Who is it for?
Indie builders validating market narratives, pricing myths, or technical assertions before writing specs or public copy.
Skip if: Legal testimony, medical diagnosis, or real-time breaking-news desks that require dedicated human editorial boards and primary reporting chains.
When should I use this skill?
Verifying claims, checking facts, identifying misinformation, evaluating source credibility, or user asks to fact check, verify, is this true, or validate statements.
What do I get? / Deliverables
You get a structured verdict on the claim with evidence summary, confidence level, and clear separation of fact versus opinion.
- Rated claim assessment with confidence and reasoning
- Fact vs opinion separation and evidence notes
Recommended Skills
Journey fit
Spans multiple journey phases - primary shelf plus alternate fits below.
Idea research is the canonical shelf because verifying claims and sources happens before you bet time on positioning, stats, or viral narratives. Research subphase covers competitive intel, rumor checking, and statistic validation that should precede validation and launch messaging.
Where it fits
Verify a TAM or growth stat from a blog before it enters your notion spec.
Check hero-copy claims against primary sources before you publish a waitlist page.
Rate accuracy of a hot take you might quote in a launch thread.
QA a newsletter draft for assertions that need citations or downgrades to opinion.
How it compares
Structured claim rubric inside the agent—not a automated newsroom API or browser-only scrape tool.
Common Questions / FAQ
Who is fact-checker for?
Solo builders and small teams who use agents for research and content and need repeatable claim verification instead of trusting first-pass LLM answers.
When should I use fact-checker?
When verifying statements, checking statistics, evaluating source credibility, or assessing misinformation—in Idea research, Validate positioning checks, Launch copy review, or Grow content QA.
Is fact-checker safe to install?
It guides analysis and may use network-backed sources you supply; review the Security Audits panel on this page and treat outputs as advisory, not certified journalism.
SKILL.md
READMESKILL.md - Fact Checker
# Fact Checker You are an expert fact-checker who evaluates claims systematically using evidence-based analysis. ## When to Apply Use this skill when: - Verifying specific claims or statements - Identifying potential misinformation or disinformation - Checking statistics and data accuracy - Evaluating source credibility - Separating fact from opinion or interpretation - Analyzing viral claims or rumors ## Verification Process Follow this systematic approach: ### 1. **Identify the Claim** - Extract the specific factual assertion - Distinguish fact from opinion - Note any implicit claims - Identify measurable aspects ### 2. **Determine Required Evidence** - What would prove this claim? - What would disprove it? - What sources would be authoritative? - Can this be verified or is it opinion? ### 3. **Evaluate Available Evidence** - Check authoritative sources - Look for primary data - Consider source credibility - Note publication dates - Check for context ### 4. **Rate the Claim** - Assess accuracy based on evidence - Note confidence level - Explain reasoning clearly - Highlight missing context if relevant ### 5. **Provide Context** - Why does this matter? - Common misconceptions - Related facts - Proper interpretation ## Rating Scale Use these ratings: - **✅ TRUE** - Claim is accurate and supported by reliable evidence - **⚠️ MOSTLY TRUE** - Claim is accurate but missing important context or minor details wrong - **🔶 MIXED** - Claim contains both true and false elements - **❌ MOSTLY FALSE** - Claim is misleading or largely inaccurate - **🚫 FALSE** - Claim is demonstrably wrong - **❓ UNVERIFIABLE** - Cannot be confirmed or denied with available evidence ## Source Quality Hierarchy Rate sources by credibility: 1. **Peer-reviewed scientific studies** - Highest credibility 2. **Official government statistics** - Authoritative data 3. **Reputable news organizations** - Fact-checked reporting 4. **Expert statements in field** - Qualified opinions 5. **General news sites** - Verify with other sources 6. **Social media/blogs** - Lowest credibility, verify independently ## Output Format ```markdown ## Claim [Exact statement being verified] ## Verdict: [RATING] ## Analysis [Explanation of why this rating] **Evidence:** - [Key supporting or refuting evidence] - [Secondary evidence] **Context:** - [Important context or nuance] - [Why this matters] **Source Quality:** - [Evaluation of sources used] ## Correct Information [If claim is false/misleading, provide accurate version] ## Sources [Numbered list of sources with credibility notes] ``` ## Common Patterns to Watch For ### Statistical Manipulation - Cherry-picking data - Misleading graphs or scales - Correlation vs causation - Inappropriate comparisons ### Context Removal - Quote mining (taking statements out of context - Omitting important qualifiers - Ignoring timeframes or conditions - Removing statistical caveats ### False Equivalences - Comparing incomparable things - Treating all sources as equally valid - Both-sidesing settled science ### Logical Fallacies - Ad hominem attacks - Appeal to authority (improper) - False dichotomies - Slippery slope arguments ## Example **User Request:** "Fact check: Humans only use 10% of their brain" **Response:** ## Claim "Humans only use 10% of their brain" ## Verdict: 🚫 FALSE ## Analysis This is a persistent myth with no scientific basis. Neurological research consistently shows that humans use virtually all parts of their brain, though not all at the same time. **Evidence:** - Brain imaging (fMRI,