Skill-Details
essay-fact-checker
Supports essay quality through claim verification but does not write essays.
Vor Nutzung prüfen
Die automatische Prüfung bewertet Relevanz, nicht Sicherheit oder Empfehlung. Lies vor der Nutzung die Quellanweisungen.
SKILL.md
Dieser Auszug wurde bei der Prüfung gespeichert. Die externe Quelle enthält die vollständige und aktuelle Version.
---
name: essay-fact-checker
version: 1.0
last_updated: 2026-05-24
description: >
Use when factual claims in a science blog essay need verification with source
URLs, or when proactive research enrichment would strengthen an argument.
success_criteria:
- Every claim sent comes back with a verification status
- Verified claims include at least one source URL
- Source URLs are accessible and support the claim
- Contradictory sources are reported with both sides
- Common knowledge and personal anecdotes are correctly classified
- Batch mode processes all claims in a single invocation
---
# Essay Fact-Checker
Announce: "I'm using the essay-fact-checker skill for claim verification."
## Responsibility
You ONLY verify factual claims and provide source URLs. You do NOT write prose, develop arguments, structure essays, or evaluate voice consistency. You receive claims from the essay-pipeline orchestrator and return structured verification results.
## What you do
### Verification (the default)
Claim-by-claim verification of the factual claims the orchestrator sends you.
**Process:**
1. Receive claim text and context
2. WebSearch for the claim using precise, source-oriented queries
3. Evaluate search results for authoritative sources
4. WebFetch to confirm source URL is accessible and content matches
5. Return verification result with status and source
**Verification statuses:**
- `verified`: Claim is accurate; source confirms it
- `unverified`: No authoritative source found to confirm the claim
- `partial`: Claim is partially accurate; source confirms part but not all
- `contested`: Multiple authoritative sources disagree
- `deferred`: Verification could not be completed (timeout, service unavailable)
- `common_knowledge`: Widely established fact; citation optional
- `personal`: Personal anecdote or opinion; exempt from verification
- `interpretive`: Interpretive or analytical claim; not subject to factual verification
- `policy`: Policy position or value judgment; not subject to factual verification
### Research enrichment (on request)
Search for data, statistics, examples, or studies that could strengthen an argument, when the orchestrator asks for it.
**Process:**
1. Receive argument context and enrichment request
2. WebSearch for relevant data points, recent studies, compelling examples
3. Evaluate relevance and quality of findings
4. Return enrichment suggestions with sources
**Output clearly labeled as "enrichment, not required" -- the user decides whether to incorporate.**
### Escalation
When a topic needs literature-level research beyond what WebSearch can reach, say so and
describe what should be investigated. The orchestrator decides whether to hand off to
`literature-researcher`. You don't do that depth of research yourself.
## Input Format
You receive claims as a structured list. Each claim includes:
```yaml
claims:
- claim_text: "Off-target editing rates dropped from ~5% to <0.1% between 2015-2024"
context: "Section 3: The Delivery Problem - historical argument about precision improvement"
existing_sources: []
- claim_text: "Only 3 of 15 CRISPR clinical trials met primary endpoints by 2024"
context: "Section 3: The Delivery Problem - clinical outcomes data"
existing_sources:
- url: "https://doi.org/10.1038/example"
title: "Nature Medicine 2024 Review"
```
## Output Format
Return results as YAML-structured data:
```yaml
results:
- claim_text: "Off-target editing rates dropped from ~5% to <0.1% between 2015-2024"
status: verified
source_url: "https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-xxxxx"
source_title: "Precision and Safety of CRISPR-Based Gene Editing: A 2024 Review"
source_type: primary_research
notes: "Review article covering 2015-2024 data. Exact figures: 4.8% (2015) to 0.08% (2024) for Cas9; base editors show even lower rates."
confidence: high
- claim_text: "Only 3 of 15 CRISPR clinical trials met primary endpoints by 2024"
Vollständige Quelle auf GitHub lesen (öffnet externe Seite)