fact-check · diff
v1.2.1 to v1.3.0
30 added, 11 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: fact-check
license: MIT
metadata:
author: CyranoB
- version: "1.2.1"
+ version: "1.3.0"
description: >
Fact-check a specific, verifiable claim by seeking supporting and contradicting
evidence, weighing source quality, and issuing a calibrated verdict with citations.
---
# Fact Check
Test a specific claim against evidence on both sides and issue a calibrated verdict.
## Tools
Before using tools, read [source-access.md](source-access.md) completely.
Use available web search and URL-fetch tools. Prefer callable names ending in
`duckduckgo_search` and `web_fetch`; client-added prefixes vary, so inspect the tools in
the session. Without session tools, run the packaged CLI in an isolated environment:
```bash
uvx --python '>=3.10,<3.14' web-forager search "your query" --max-results 8 --output-format json
uvx --python '>=3.10,<3.14' web-forager fetch "https://example.com" --format markdown
```
If `uvx` cannot run packaged search, use `ddgs` without touching the current project
environment:
```bash
uv run --no-project --python '>=3.10,<3.14' --with 'ddgs>=9.5.2' python - <<'PY'
from ddgs import DDGS
results = DDGS().text(query="your query", max_results=8)
for r in results:
print(r["title"], r["href"], r["body"])
PY
```
If packaged fetch fails, use Jina Reader:
```bash
curl -s "https://r.jina.ai/https://example.com"
```
The workflow requires both search and fetch. If either capability is unavailable,
return `UNVERIFIED` and name the missing capability.
## Workflow
### 1. Extract the claims
Turn the user's statement into specific, independently verifiable claims. Separate
compound claims. If wording is subjective, explain that it can be contextualized but
cannot receive a factual verdict. Continue immediately when the claim is clear; ask for
confirmation only when two plausible interpretations would change the evidence sought.
- **Complete when:** every factual claim is precise enough that contrary evidence could
- disprove it.
+ Normalize each factual claim's entity, metric and units, population, geography, and
+ relevant date where applicable. Preserve the original meaning and make material
+ assumptions explicit. Establish whether the user wants publication-time evidence,
+ a current assessment, or both; judge an explicitly historical statement at its stated
+ date and label later developments separately. Otherwise use the current date as cutoff.
+ Treat an unexpired forecast as a prediction with a horizon and assumptions. Assess its
+ support and likelihood; an unlikely prediction is not FALSE merely because its deadline
+ has not arrived. Check its factual premises separately.
+
+ **Complete when:** every factual claim has a testable meaning and temporal frame;
+ subjective statements and forecasts are distinguished from established facts.
+
### 2. Seek support
Search for primary evidence that would confirm each claim. Use direct paraphrases,
official statements, and queries for the exact metric or event.
**Complete when:** each claim has the strongest available supporting evidence, or the
absence of support is recorded.
### 3. Seek contradiction
Actively search for counterevidence, corrections, alternative measurements, and credible
disagreement. Do not treat failure to find a debunk as confirmation.
**Complete when:** every claim has received a genuine adversarial search, not merely a
second confirming query.
### 4. Read and weigh sources
- Read 2–4 of the most authoritative sources across both sides. Evaluate authority,
- specificity, recency, independence, and conflicts of interest.
+ Read enough decisive evidence for each atomic claim, starting with the strongest sources
+ on both sides and expanding when a claim remains unsupported or disputed. A total source
+ count is not a coverage criterion. Search snippets are discovery aids, not verdict evidence.
+ Evaluate authority, specificity, recency, independence, and conflicts of interest.
+ Trace corroborating reports to their underlying records: repeated publication of one
+ study, release, or wire report is one evidence chain. Read the relevant methods,
+ definitions, qualifications, and quotation context before drawing a conclusion.
- **Complete when:** the decisive evidence addresses the exact claim and all material
- source limitations are known.
+ **Complete when:** every atomic claim has read evidence addressing its exact scope and
+ time frame, or a named gap; independence and material source limitations are explicit.
+ Stop when further searches repeat evidence without a realistic prospect of changing
+ the verdict; unresolved gaps remain UNVERIFIED rather than triggering invented support.
### 5. Deliver the verdict
Use this scale:
- - **CONFIRMED:** multiple authoritative sources agree and no credible contradiction
- survives review.
+ - **CONFIRMED:** independent authoritative evidence agrees, or a definitive primary
+ record directly establishes the exact fact; no credible contradiction survives review.
- **LIKELY TRUE:** strong support remains, with minor gaps or caveats.
+ - **NEEDS CONTEXT:** the core fact holds, but its scope, certainty, or significance is
+ overstated. Explain the missing baseline or qualifier; use FALSE when the core fact fails.
- **UNVERIFIED:** strong evidence is unavailable in either direction.
- **DISPUTED:** credible sources materially disagree.
- **FALSE:** strong evidence contradicts the claim and support is weak or absent.
Default to a compact verdict for one claim:
1. state the claim and verdict first;
2. explain the decisive support and contradiction in 2–4 sentences;
3. add only caveats that could change how the verdict is understood;
- 4. cite 2–4 decisive sources, annotated by role.
+ 4. cite the decisive read sources, annotated by role; use only as many as needed.
For multiple extracted claims, repeat the compact block for each. Use a source-by-source
account only when the user requests it or a material conflict cannot be explained
compactly. State explicitly when one side produced no evidence.
- **Complete when:** every extracted claim has a verdict, both search directions are
+ **Complete when:** every extracted factual claim has a verdict, both search directions are
accounted for, decisive evidence is cited, and confidence matches the limitations.