analystacademy Fact Checker
Verify factual claims in written content and return a clear, sourced, actionable report.
Triggering
Use this skill when:
- The user types
/factcheck(with or without content following) - The user pastes a draft and says anything like "fact-check this", "check this", "is this accurate?", "verify this"
Step 1: Get the content and tier
If the user hasn't provided content yet, ask for it.
If the user hasn't specified a tier, use the ask_user_input_v0 tool to present clickable options — do NOT ask them to type it. Use this exact call:
ask_user_input_v0({
questions: [{
question: "Which level of fact-checking would you like?",
type: "single_select",
options: [
"⚡ Quick — Top claims only, fast",
"🔍 Standard — All claims, solid sourcing",
"🧠 Deep — All claims, multiple sources, nuance flagged"
]
}]
})
Step 2: Extract claims
Read the content carefully and identify all checkable factual claims — statements that are objectively true or false and can be verified. Ignore opinions, predictions, and subjective statements.
Examples of checkable claims:
- Statistics and numbers ("X% of people…", "revenue grew by $Y")
- Named events and dates ("X happened in 2021")
- Attributions ("X said…", "X was founded by…")
- Scientific or historical facts
- Claims about specific people, companies, or products
Watch for viral/commonly-misquoted claims — statistics or quotes that circulate widely online but have a history of being misattributed, exaggerated, or fabricated (e.g. "85% of jobs in 2030 don't exist yet", "humans only use 10% of their brains"). Flag these proactively for extra scrutiny.
Label each claim with a short identifier (C1, C2, C3…).
Step 3: Research by tier
⚡ Quick
- Pick the top 3–5 most important or risky claims (skip minor details)
- Run one focused web search per claim
- Prioritize speed over exhaustiveness
- If a result looks surprising or contradicts the claim, run one follow-up search to confirm before marking as ❌
🔍 Standard
- Check all identified claims
- Run one to two web searches per claim
- Prioritize authoritative sources (official sites, reputable news, academic sources)
- For any ❌ or surprising ⚠️ finding: run a second search from a different angle to confirm before finalizing the verdict
🧠 Deep
- Check all identified claims
- Run two to four web searches per claim, cross-referencing sources
- For any ❌ or surprising ⚠️ finding: mandatory second verification search from a different source or angle before finalizing — do not mark something as wrong based on a single source
- If sources conflict, flag it explicitly
- Note important context, nuance, or caveats even if the core claim is technically correct
- Flag any claims that are misleading or missing important context, even if not outright false
- Apply the 🚨 Viral/Misquoted flag to any claim that appears widely circulated but dubious
Step 4: Output the report
Return a clean, scannable report in this format:
🔎 Fact-Check Report — [Quick / Standard / Deep]
Content type: [LinkedIn post / Email / YouTube script / Newsletter / Other]
Publishability: 🟢 Good to go / 🟡 Fix before publishing / 🔴 Do not publish as-is
C1: [Short summary of the claim]
"[Exact quote or close paraphrase from the original text]"
✅ Verified / ❌ Incorrect / ⚠️ Partially correct / ❓ Unverifiable / 🚨 Viral claim — unreliable
[1–3 sentence explanation of what you found. If incorrect or partially correct, state what the accurate information is.]
🔗 Source: [Source name + URL]
💬 Suggested fix: "[Drop-in corrected sentence the user can paste straight into their draft — only include this for ❌ and ⚠️ claims, not for ✅]"
(Repeat for each claim)
Summary
- ✅ Verified: X
- ❌ Incorrect: X
- ⚠️ Partially correct: X
- ❓ Unverifiable: X
- 🚨 Viral/unreliable: X
Overall assessment: [1–2 sentence summary of how accurate the content is.]
Status labels
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| ✅ Verified | Confirmed accurate by reliable sources |
| ❌ Incorrect | Contradicted by reliable sources — provide the correct information + a suggested fix |
| ⚠️ Partially correct | Core claim is true but missing context, outdated, or overstated — provide a suggested fix |
| ❓ Unverifiable | Could not find reliable sources to confirm or deny |
| 🚨 Viral/Misquoted | Widely circulated stat or quote with no credible original source — treat as unreliable |
Publishability rating
| Rating | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 🟢 Good to go | All claims verified or only minor caveats — safe to publish |
| 🟡 Fix before publishing | One or more claims are incorrect or partially correct — fix flagged items first |
| 🔴 Do not publish as-is | Multiple significant errors, or a core claim is wrong in a way that would embarrass the author |
Tone guidelines
- Be direct and useful — this is a tool, not an essay
- When something is wrong, say what the correct information is
- The suggested fix should be natural and ready to paste — not a note to the author, but actual replacement text
- Don't hedge excessively — if the sources are clear, be clear
- For Deep checks: flag nuance and context even when a claim is technically true