Fact-Check Workflow

Verify this claim: $ARGUMENTS

Verification Process

Step 1: Understand the Claim

Break down the claim into verifiable components:

• •What specific facts are being asserted?
• •What would need to be true for this claim to be accurate?
• •Are there numbers, dates, or specific details to verify?

Step 2: Search for Primary Sources

Use google_search to find:

1. •Official sources - Government, academic institutions, official documentation
   code

   query: "[claim keywords] site:gov OR site:edu"
   

2. •Fact-checking sites - Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org
   code

   query: "[claim] fact check"
   

3. •News sources - Reuters, AP, established journalism
   code

   query: "[claim]" with dateRestrict for recency
   

Step 3: Extract and Compare

Use extract_webpage_content on top 3-5 sources with highest authority scores.

Compare:

• •Do sources agree on the core facts?
• •Are there important caveats or context missing from the original claim?
• •What's the original source of the information?

Step 4: Assess Source Quality

Prioritize sources by:

1. •Primary sources (original data, studies, official records)
2. •Academic/peer-reviewed content
3. •Established news organizations
4. •Expert commentary

Be skeptical of:

• •Single-source claims
• •Sources with commercial interest
• •Outdated information
• •Circular citations (all sources citing each other)

Verdict Format

# Fact Check: [Claim]

## Verdict: [TRUE / MOSTLY TRUE / MIXED / MOSTLY FALSE / FALSE / UNVERIFIABLE]

## Summary
[1-2 sentence summary of findings]

## Evidence

### Supporting Evidence
- [Source]: [What they say] (Authority: X%)
- ...

### Contradicting Evidence
- [Source]: [What they say] (Authority: X%)
- ...

## Important Context
[Any nuance, caveats, or missing context from the original claim]

## Source Quality
- Primary sources consulted: X
- Average source authority: X%
- Source agreement: [High/Medium/Low]

## Confidence Level
[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] - [Explanation of confidence]

Red Flags to Note

• •Claim uses vague language ("studies show", "experts say") without specifics
• •Numbers that seem too round or dramatic
• •Claims that align suspiciously well with a particular agenda
• •Information that can't be traced to an original source