fact-check v1.1.0A

Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/a8c6153aa7c68248.

---
name: fact-check
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: CyranoB
  version: "1.1.0"
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

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.

### 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.

**Complete when:** the decisive evidence addresses the exact claim and all material
source limitations are known.

### 5. Deliver the verdict

Use this scale:

- **CONFIRMED:** multiple authoritative sources agree and no credible contradiction
  survives review.
- **LIKELY TRUE:** strong support remains, with minor gaps or caveats.
- **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.

Report the claim, verdict, short rationale, supporting evidence, contradicting evidence,
caveats, and annotated sources. State explicitly when one side produced no evidence.

**Complete when:** every extracted claim has a verdict, both search directions are
accounted for, decisive evidence is cited, and confidence matches the limitations.