# Source Grounded Claims > Use when producing any substantive answer, claim, assumption, recommendation, or review — research findings, architecture calls, code review, status statements. Attaches an explicit calibrated confidence percentage to each substantive claim (80% is the 'likely true' threshold for acting on it), verifies facts against primary sources before asserting them, and cites only sources actually consulted. Never fabricates a citation. - Skill: `amitsinghom/source-grounded-claims` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add amitsinghom/source-grounded-claims` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/amitsinghom/source-grounded-claims/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Research & Search - License: MIT - Author: AmitSinghOM (https://skillmd.com/u/amitsinghom) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/amitsinghom/source-grounded-claims --- # Source-Grounded Claims ## Overview Every substantive claim carries an explicit confidence percentage and, where the claim is a fact rather than the agent's own reasoning, a cited source the agent actually consulted. The 80% line is the "likely true" threshold: at or above it the claim is actionable; below it the claim is explicitly tentative and names what evidence would raise it. Being confidently wrong is expensive. This skill exists so a reader can trust a high number and so an unchecked guess never wears a confidence badge. ## Usage Apply to: - Research findings, comparisons, "what is X / how does X work" answers. - Assumptions and recommendations (architecture, security, tooling, next steps). - Reviews (code, design, documents) and any status claim ("this passes", "this is done"). - Anything where being confidently wrong is costly. Do **not** attach confidence to trivial conversational turns (acknowledgements, clarifying questions). It applies to substantive claims, not chatter. ## Core Concepts - **Confidence is calibrated, not decorative.** The percentage is the honest post-research probability that the statement is true. Unchecked → lower number, said out loud. Never inflate to sound sure. - **80% = the action threshold.** At or above 80% the claim is treated as actionable. Below 80% it MUST be marked tentative AND name the evidence that would move it above the line. - **Verify before asserting.** A factual claim MUST be checked against a source before it earns a high number. An unverified assertion is a guess wearing a confidence badge. - **Cite what was actually used.** Every fact-based claim names the real source consulted — title plus link or absolute path — not a plausible-sounding reference. Not opened → not cited. - **Separate fact from reasoning.** Facts need sources. The agent's own inferences need a confidence number but are labelled *inference*, not citation. ## Verification Order For any factual claim, verify in this order and cite what was used: 1. **The authoritative source for the system in question.** For a tool, library, API, or service: its official documentation, specification, changelog, or source code. For an organisation's own systems: that organisation's internal documentation and code, which are authoritative over anything public. 2. **The artifact itself** for claims about local code, files, or outputs: read the actual bytes, run the actual command, and cite the absolute path or the command output. 3. **Secondary sources** (blog posts, Q&A sites, general web search) only to locate a primary source or when no primary source exists — and say which. If a source cannot be reached or was not supplied, do not answer the factual question from memory. Say `unverified`, keep confidence below 80%, name the exact source or evidence needed, and do not invent a title, link, or path. When a source excerpt is supplied in the request, treat only that excerpt as verified: cite its supplied label, separate direct facts from inference, and mark anything dependent on an unavailable appendix or link as unverified. ## Output Format Inline, or a short trailing block for multi-claim answers: ``` Inline: "SARIF 2.1.0 is the version the analyzer emits (~98%, source: runs[0] of the file I generated at /tmp/out.sarif)." Trailing block: Confidence (80% = likely-true threshold): - — 92% — + - — 60% — unverified; would rise with - — 75% — my reasoning from , not a source ``` Rules: - Every substantive claim gets a number. - Every **fact** claim gets a source that was actually consulted. - Claims **below 80%** are marked tentative AND state what would raise them. - Never present a source that was not opened; never round a guess up to look certain. ## Worked Example ``` "The spec requires `name` to equal the skill's directory name — 98% (read directly: agentskills.io/specification, 'name field'). Whether this client also enforces it at load time — 55%, unverified; would rise to ~90% after loading a deliberately mismatched skill and observing the error." ``` ## Common Mistakes - **MUST NOT** state a fact without a consulted source; an uncited fact is indistinguishable from a hallucination to the reader. - **MUST NOT** assign ≥80% to something not verified; the threshold is the reader's action signal and inflating it makes it worthless. - **MUST NOT** cite a source that was not actually opened; a fabricated citation is worse than none. - **SHOULD** prefer the system's own documentation or code over third-party summaries; primary sources are authoritative. - **SHOULD** lower confidence and say "unverified" when a source is unreachable, rather than falling back to memory and asserting.