← 返回 Skills 市场
futurizerush

Fact Check

作者 Futurize Rush · GitHub ↗ · v0.1.1 · MIT-0
cross-platform ⚠ suspicious
128
总下载
0
收藏
0
当前安装
2
版本数
在 OpenClaw 中安装
/install fact-check-verify
功能描述
This skill should be used when the user asks to "fact check", "verify this", "is this true", "check the facts", "validate claims", "are these field names cor...
使用说明 (SKILL.md)

Fact Check: Verify Before You Ship

Verify that every claim, reference, and technical detail is backed by current evidence. AI models have training data cutoffs and frequently hallucinate version numbers, API signatures, field names, CLI flags, and dates. This skill provides a systematic process to catch these errors before they reach users.

Why This Exists

AI models commonly produce these types of false information:

Category Example of Hallucination
Model names/versions Referencing "GPT-5" or "Claude 4" when they don't exist yet
API field names Writing likeCount when the real API returns like_count
CLI flags Using --recursive when the tool only supports -r
Library methods Calling .transformAll() on a library that has no such method
Dates Getting today's date wrong, or citing a "2024 release" that happened in 2025
SDK versions Referencing v2.0 features when the latest is v1.8
Repo structure Claiming a file exists at a path where it doesn't
Default values Stating "default is 100" when the actual default is 50

The Verification Process

For every piece of output that contains technical claims, run this process:

Step 1: Identify Claims

Scan the output and tag every verifiable claim:

  • Version numbers (library, SDK, model, API)
  • Field names (API response, config keys, database columns)
  • CLI commands and flags
  • URLs and endpoints
  • Dates and timelines
  • Default values and limits
  • File paths and function names
  • "It supports X" or "X is available" statements

Step 2: Classify Each Claim

Classification Meaning Action
Verified Confirmed by tool output, API call, or file read Mark with evidence source
Unverified Not yet checked Must verify before output
Unverifiable Cannot be checked with available tools Label clearly as unverified
Stale Based on information older than 6 months Re-verify from current source

Step 3: Verify Using Tools

For each unverified claim, use the appropriate verification method:

Claim Type Verification Method
File exists at path ls /path/to/file or Read tool
Function/method exists grep -r "function_name" /path/to/repo
API field name Make a real API call and inspect the response
CLI flag exists command --help or man command
npm package version npm info package-name version
Python package version pip show package-name
GitHub repo info gh repo view owner/repo
PR/Issue status gh pr view NUMBER --repo owner/repo
Current date date command
URL is reachable curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" URL
Git branch/tag exists git ls-remote --tags origin

Step 4: Label the Output

After verification, every claim in the output should be one of:

  • Verified (with evidence: "confirmed by npm info output")
  • Unverified (explicitly marked: "not yet confirmed")
  • Corrected (original was wrong, replaced with verified data)

Do / Don't Checklist

Do

  • Verify every version number mentioned in output with a tool or API call
  • Verify URLs you generate with curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" URL before recommending
  • Never guess URLs — if you can't see it, ask the user to provide it
  • For user-provided URLs: only check HTTP status code (-o /dev/null), don't fetch or render content from untrusted sources (phishing/malware risk)
  • Check today's date with date if you reference it
  • Run actual API calls to confirm field names (don't guess from memory)
  • Use --help or docs to confirm CLI flags exist
  • Check if URLs return 200 before recommending them
  • Mark claims as "unverified" if you cannot check them
  • Date your verification ("verified on 2026-04-11")
  • Re-verify if the source information is older than 6 months
  • Verify PR/issue status with gh commands, not from memory

Don't

  • Don't trust your memory for version numbers, API shapes, or dates
  • Don't assume an API field name — always verify from real output
  • Don't report "I fixed it" without verifying CI passes (gh pr checks)
  • Don't report "PR has reviews" without checking (gh pr view)
  • Don't cite documentation without confirming the URL exists
  • Don't use old StackOverflow answers as current truth — platforms change
  • Don't claim "push succeeded" means "task complete"
  • Don't state defaults or limits without checking the actual source code or schema

Common Hallucination Patterns to Watch For

Pattern 1: Outdated Model/Version References

AI models are frozen at their training cutoff. Always verify:

# Check latest version of a package
npm info @anthropic-ai/sdk version
pip show openai | grep Version
gh release list --repo owner/repo --limit 3

Pattern 2: Invented API Fields

Never guess API response field names. Always run the API and read the actual response:

# Real API call to verify field names
curl -s "https://api.example.com/endpoint" | jq '.[0] | keys'

Pattern 3: False Success Reporting

The most dangerous hallucination. "I did it" when the work is incomplete:

What was said What it actually means How to verify
"Pushed successfully" Git push worked gh pr checks — is CI green?
"Responded to review" Committed a change Does the new code actually fix the issue?
"Found 10 problems" Listed 10 items Read the code for each — do they exist?
"PR has been reviewed" Someone looked at it gh pr view --json reviews — what's the count?

Pattern 4: Phantom References

Referencing things that don't exist:

# Verify a file exists before referencing it
ls /path/to/claimed/file

# Verify a function exists in a codebase
grep -r "functionName" src/

# Verify an npm package exists
npm info claimed-package-name

Pattern 5: Date Confusion

AI models often get dates wrong, including today's date:

# Always verify current date
date "+%Y-%m-%d"

# Check when a release was published
gh release view v1.0.0 --repo owner/repo --json publishedAt

Pattern 6: URL Guessing

AI models will fabricate plausible-looking URLs when they don't know the real one:

Fabricated URL Why it looks right Actual URL
https://auth.openai.com/activate Follows common OAuth patterns https://auth.openai.com/codex/device
https://docs.clawhub.ai Standard docs subdomain Does not exist (returns 404)
https://api.example.com/v2/schema Common API convention Endpoint may not exist

Prevention:

  • Never guess URLs. If you can't see the full output, ask the user to expand it.
  • If recommending a URL, verify it with curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" URL first.
  • Say "I don't have the URL — can you check the terminal output?" instead of guessing.
  • URLs are not inferrable from patterns. auth.openai.com/activate vs auth.openai.com/codex/device — one character path difference, completely different endpoints.

Verification Report Format

When fact-checking, produce a report like this:

## Fact Check Report

| # | Claim | Status | Evidence |
|---|-------|--------|----------|
| 1 | "API returns `like_count`" | Verified | Real API run, dataset abc123 |
| 2 | "Latest version is v2.3" | Corrected → v2.5 | `npm info package version` |
| 3 | "Supports `--recursive` flag" | Unverified | Cannot test without install |
| 4 | "Default timeout is 30s" | Verified | Source code line 42 |

Tips

  • The more confident you feel about a claim, the more important it is to verify. Confidence ≠ correctness.
  • "I'm pretty sure" is not evidence. Run the command.
  • Verification has a cost (time, API calls), but false information has a higher cost (broken code, lost trust, wasted user time).
  • When in doubt, say "I'm not sure — let me verify" instead of guessing.
  • If you can't verify something, say so explicitly. An honest "unverified" is better than a confident hallucination.
安全使用建议
This skill is coherent for verifying technical claims, but it directs the agent to run commands that can read local files and make network requests. Before installing: (1) confirm you trust the skill source (no homepage or author provenance is provided); (2) run the skill in a sandbox or restrict its filesystem/network access if possible; (3) be prepared to provide credentials (e.g., GH token) only when you explicitly want checks against private resources; (4) review and, if needed, limit any automated commands that will read paths you consider sensitive. If you need stronger assurance, ask the publisher for a README or provenance (homepage, repo) and for the skill to explicitly declare which env vars it will use.
功能分析
Type: OpenClaw Skill Name: fact-check-verify Version: 0.1.1 The skill bundle provides a systematic framework for an AI agent to verify technical claims and prevent hallucinations. It utilizes standard CLI tools (e.g., curl, npm, gh, grep) for legitimate verification tasks and includes explicit safety instructions in SKILL.md to avoid downloading content from untrusted URLs to mitigate phishing risks.
能力标签
requires-oauth-token
能力评估
Purpose & Capability
Name/description align with the instructions: verifying version numbers, API fields, CLI flags, file paths and dates legitimately requires the tools and checks listed (curl, npm/pip/gh, ls, grep, date, etc.).
Instruction Scope
SKILL.md instructs the agent to run shell commands that read files (ls, grep), query local repos, run network requests (curl), and call tooling (gh, npm, pip). These actions are coherent for verification, but they grant broad access to local files and external endpoints; the guidance is fairly prescriptive about running those commands and labeling results, which could lead to unintended disclosure of sensitive local data if not constrained.
Install Mechanism
Instruction-only skill with no install spec and no code files — lowest install risk (nothing is written to disk by the skill itself).
Credentials
The skill declares no required environment variables, yet it instructs use of tools that commonly require credentials for private resources (e.g., gh for private repos, APIs that need tokens). This is explainable if only public resources are targeted, but the mismatch should be noted and the skill should prompt for credentials only when necessary.
Persistence & Privilege
No elevated persistence requested (always:false). The skill does not request to modify other agent configs or remain force-enabled.
如何使用
  1. 确保已安装 OpenClaw(本地或 Docker 部署)
  2. 在对话框中输入安装命令:/install fact-check-verify
  3. 安装完成后,直接呼叫该 Skill 的名称或使用 /fact-check-verify 触发
  4. 根据 Skill 的参数说明提供必要输入,即可获得结构化输出
版本历史
v0.1.1
Add URL guessing pattern, URL verification rules, phishing safety.
v0.1.0
Initial release. Systematic fact verification for AI agents.
元数据
Slug fact-check-verify
版本 0.1.1
许可证 MIT-0
累计安装 0
当前安装数 0
历史版本数 2
常见问题

Fact Check 是什么?

This skill should be used when the user asks to "fact check", "verify this", "is this true", "check the facts", "validate claims", "are these field names cor... 它是一个面向 Claude Code / OpenClaw 的 AI Agent Skill 插件,目前累计下载 128 次。

如何安装 Fact Check?

在 OpenClaw 或 Claude Code 对话框中运行命令「/install fact-check-verify」即可一键安装,无需额外配置。

Fact Check 是免费的吗?

是的,Fact Check 完全免费,采用 MIT-0 许可证,可自由下载、安装和使用。

Fact Check 支持哪些平台?

Fact Check 跨平台运行,可在任意部署了 OpenClaw / Claude Code 的环境中使用(cross-platform)。

谁开发了 Fact Check?

由 Futurize Rush(@futurizerush)开发并维护,当前版本 v0.1.1。

💬 留言讨论