Fact-Check Skill
Purpose: Verify factual claims in documents against authoritative sources. Assume any quotes or references are hallucinated unless demonstrably proven.
When to invoke:
- •User asks to "triple check", "verify", "fact-check" a document
- •Before submitting reviews, reports, or assessments with factual claims
- •When reviewing AI-generated content that cites sources
Core Principle: Burden of Proof
Every factual claim carries a high burden of proof that must be discharged with evidence. Unlike normal reading where we assume good faith, verification requires demonstrating accuracy—not just absence of obvious error.
Why? LLM-generated content confidently produces plausible-sounding details that don't exist: invented statistics, misattributed quotes, fabricated publication dates, non-existent researchers.
Workflow
Phase 1: Identify Claims
Read the document and extract ALL factual claims requiring verification:
| Claim Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| Names | Researchers, institutions, organizations |
| Numbers | Sample sizes, percentages, dates, funding amounts |
| Publications | Paper titles, journals, publication years |
| Quotes | Direct quotes attributed to sources |
| Credentials | Degrees, positions, affiliations |
| Events | Presentations, grants, collaborations |
| Timelines | Duration claims ("10-year collaboration") |
Use TodoWrite to track each claim category.
Phase 2: Identify Authoritative Sources
For each claim, determine what would constitute authoritative verification:
| Claim Type | Authoritative Sources |
|---|---|
| Researcher details | University profiles, Google Scholar, dblp, ORCID |
| Publications | Publisher websites, DOI links, preprint servers |
| Institutions | Official websites, LinkedIn (for existence) |
| Project details | Grant databases, project websites, research plans |
| Statistics | Primary source documents, methodology sections |
| Quotes | Original source (book, paper, interview) |
Critical: If the document references a primary source (e.g., "research plan PDF"), READ THAT FIRST. It's the authoritative source for claims about the project.
Phase 3: Cross-Reference Each Claim
For each claim:
- •Search authoritative sources using WebSearch, WebFetch, or Read
- •Quote exact evidence found (or note absence)
- •Compare claim against evidence
- •Classify the result
Phase 4: Classify Results
| Status | Meaning | Format |
|---|---|---|
| ✅ Verified | Claim matches authoritative source | Cite source with link/page |
| ⚠️ Clarification needed | Source exists but details differ | Note discrepancy |
| 🔍 Unverifiable | No authoritative source accessible | Note what was searched |
| 📝 Professional judgment | Opinion/assessment, not factual claim | Note this is not a verification target |
Phase 5: Compile Report
Create verification report using template:
## Verified Claims (Accurate) | Claim | Source | | ------- | ----------------------- | | [claim] | [source with link/page] | ## Claims Requiring Clarification | Claim | Issue | Evidence | | ------- | ------------- | ---------------- | | [claim] | [discrepancy] | [what was found] | ## Unverifiable Claims | Claim | Search Attempted | | ------- | ----------------- | | [claim] | [sources checked] | ## Professional Judgments (Not Verifiable) - [assessment 1] - [assessment 2] ## Conclusion [Summary: hallucinations found? / clean? / caveats?]
Phase 6: Save Companion File
Save report as {document-name}-verification.md in same directory as source document.
Common Hallucination Patterns
Watch especially for:
- •Plausible-sounding statistics - "n=825" sounds specific, verify it
- •Timeline inflation - "10-year collaboration" - check earliest joint publication
- •Credential enhancement - Verify actual titles/positions
- •Quote fabrication - Direct quotes are often invented
- •Publication conflation - Mixing details from different papers
- •Institutional misattribution - Wrong university/department
What This Skill Does NOT Do
- •Evaluate quality of claims (that's reviewer judgment)
- •Check methodology soundness (domain expertise)
- •Assess writing quality (editorial review)
- •Verify opinions (professional judgment isn't factual)
This skill verifies factual accuracy only.
Example Invocation
User: "Triple check everything in my SNSF review - assume any quotes or references are hallucinated unless proven otherwise."
Agent:
1. Reads review document
2. TodoWrite: Lists all factual claims by category
3. Reads primary source (research plan PDF)
4. WebSearch: Verifies researcher profiles, publications, institutions
5. Cross-references each claim
6. Compiles verification report
7. Saves as {review}-verification.md