fact-check
Scannednpx machina-cli add skill damionrashford/RivalSearch-Plugin/fact-check --openclawFact Check
Verify the following claim: $ARGUMENTS
Follow these steps precisely using RivalSearchMCP tools. Report progress after each step.
Step 1: Claim Decomposition
Parse the claim into individually verifiable components. List each sub-claim and what evidence would confirm or refute it.
Step 2: Primary Source Search
Use web_search to find the origin of the claim:
- query: "$ARGUMENTS"
- num_results: 15
- extract_content: true
Identify where this claim first appeared. Use content_operations to retrieve the original source:
- operation: "retrieve", url: <source_url>, extraction_method: "markdown"
Step 3: Corroboration Search
Search for independent confirmation:
web_searchwith query: "$ARGUMENTS", num_results: 10web_searchwith alternative phrasing of the claim, num_results: 10news_aggregationwith query: "$ARGUMENTS", max_results: 10, time_range: "month"
Count how many independent sources confirm the claim.
Step 4: Counter-Evidence Search
Actively search for contradicting evidence:
web_searchwith query: "$ARGUMENTS false OR debunked OR incorrect OR misleading", num_results: 10social_searchwith query: "$ARGUMENTS", platforms: ["reddit", "hackernews"], max_results_per_platform: 10
Look for rebuttals, corrections, retractions, or alternative explanations.
Step 5: Academic Verification
If the claim involves data, statistics, or technical facts:
scientific_researchwith operation: "academic_search", query: "$ARGUMENTS", max_results: 5, sources: ["semantic_scholar", "arxiv"]
Check if peer-reviewed research supports or contradicts the claim.
Step 6: Deep Source Analysis
For the 2-3 most authoritative sources (for and against), use content_operations:
- operation: "retrieve", url: <source_url>, extraction_method: "markdown"
- operation: "analyze", content: <retrieved>, analysis_type: "general", extract_key_points: true
Read and assess the quality of each source.
Step 7: Compile Verdict
- Claim Under Review — Quote the exact claim
- Verdict — One of: Verified / Likely True / Unverified / Disputed / Likely False / False
- Confidence Score — High / Medium-High / Medium / Medium-Low / Low
- Evidence For — Sources supporting the claim with inline citations
- Evidence Against — Sources contradicting the claim with inline citations
- Primary Source Analysis — What the original source actually says
- Context & Nuance — Important context that affects interpretation
- Component Verdicts — If multiple sub-claims, verdict on each
- Sources — Complete list of all URLs consulted
Use clean markdown. Every factual statement must cite its source with Source Name format.
Source
git clone https://github.com/damionrashford/RivalSearch-Plugin/blob/main/skills/fact-check/SKILL.mdView on GitHub Overview
Fact-check verifies claims by cross-referencing web, news, academic, and social sources. It then produces a confidence-scored verdict with a full evidence chain to help validate statements before sharing or acting on them.
How This Skill Works
The process begins with decomposing the claim into verifiable sub-claims. RivalSearchMCP tools are used to locate primary sources, retrieve and analyze content, and gather corroborating and counter-evidence. Finally, a structured verdict with context, sources, and a confidence score is produced.
When to Use It
- Verifying factual statements in journalism or content creation before publication
- Debunking or confirming political claims or policy proposals
- Validating statistics and data in reports, briefs, or research
- Fact-checking viral posts or rumors on social media
- Assessing technical or scientific claims that require sources and evidence
Quick Start
- Step 1: Claim Decomposition — break the claim into verifiable sub-claims and identify needed evidence.
- Step 2: Primary Source Search — use web_search to locate origin and retrieve the source content; retrieve original source with content_operations.
- Step 3: Compile Verdict — assess corroboration and counter-evidence, then issue a structured verdict with sources and context.
Best Practices
- Decompose the claim into sub-claims and specify what evidence would confirm or refute each
- Prioritize primary sources and origin documents to establish provenance
- Seek independent corroboration from multiple, diverse sources
- Actively search for counter-evidence, corrections, or retractions
- Document evidence with clear citations and report a transparent confidence level
Example Use Cases
- Claim: A new drug X cures Condition Y in mice. Fact-checking reveals no replicated human trials; verdict: Unverified.
- Claim: App Z reduces smartphone screen time by 60% in a week. Marketing study lacks independent replication; verdict: Disputed.
- Claim: Policy Y will save $1B annually. Government report source verified; verdict: Verified.
- Claim: 5G causes illness. Widespread social-media posts debunked by multiple health authorities; verdict: False.
- Claim: Fertilizer A boosts crop yield by 25% in field trials. Peer-reviewed study supports; verdict: Verified.