/verify — Fact Verification Skill
Purpose
Fact-check claims encountered during reading sessions. This covers dates, names, historical events, publication details, and attribution of ideas. Use when the user questions a claim or when a factual assertion seems uncertain.
Trigger Words
This skill activates on: verify, check this, fact-check, is this correct, /verify.
Workflow
- Extract the claim from the user's input or from conversation context. Identify the specific factual assertion to verify (date, name, event, publication, attribution).
- Search authoritative sources using WebSearch. Prioritise:
- Wikipedia (for dates, biographical facts, historical events)
- Academic databases (Google Scholar, JSTOR, PhilPapers)
- Publisher websites (for publication dates, editions, ISBNs)
- Encyclopedias (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Britannica)
- Compare the original claim against verified information.
- Output the verdict using the format below.
- Optionally annotate the notes file. If the user confirms, use Edit to add a
(verified) or (corrected: {correct info}) tag next to the relevant entry in the notes file.
Output Format
## Verification
**Claim**: {the original claim as stated in the source}
**Verdict**: Confirmed | Needs correction | Incorrect | Unverifiable
| Item | Original | Verified |
|------|----------|----------|
| {specific fact} | {as claimed} | {as verified} |
**Source**: {single-line citation in the project's declared style — see `literature/reading_notes/_template_NOTES.md` for per-style examples; the active style is `Citation style:` in `CLAUDE.md`. Append the URL after the citation if the source is web-only}
**Confidence**: High | Medium | Low
**Notes**: {any additional context, e.g., "Date varies by edition" or "Multiple conflicting sources"}
Multiple Claims
When verifying several claims at once, produce one verification block per claim, numbered sequentially:
### 1. {Brief claim description}
{verification block}
### 2. {Brief claim description}
{verification block}
Annotation
When the user says "annotate" or "mark in notes" after verification:
- Use Edit to find the relevant passage in the notes file.
- Append the tag inline:
(verified 2026-03-30) or (corrected: {correct value}, verified 2026-03-30).
- Do not alter the original text of the note -- add the tag after it.
Constraints
- Never auto-correct notes without user confirmation. Present the verdict first, then ask if the user wants to annotate.
- Cite sources with URLs whenever possible. Do not present unverifiable assertions as fact.
- Acknowledge uncertainty. If sources conflict, report all versions and mark confidence as Low.
- No emoji in output.
- Scope: This skill verifies factual claims only. For argument analysis or interpretation, defer to the user's own reading.
1---2name: verify3description: Fact-check claims encountered during reading — dates, names, events, citations. Use when encountering historical facts or disputed claims.4---56# /verify — Fact Verification Skill78## Purpose910Fact-check claims encountered during reading sessions. This covers dates, names, historical events, publication details, and attribution of ideas. Use when the user questions a claim or when a factual assertion seems uncertain.1112## Trigger Words1314This skill activates on: `verify`, `check this`, `fact-check`, `is this correct`, `/verify`.1516## Workflow17181. **Extract the claim** from the user's input or from conversation context. Identify the specific factual assertion to verify (date, name, event, publication, attribution).192. **Search authoritative sources** using WebSearch. Prioritise:20 - Wikipedia (for dates, biographical facts, historical events)21 - Academic databases (Google Scholar, JSTOR, PhilPapers)22 - Publisher websites (for publication dates, editions, ISBNs)23 - Encyclopedias (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Britannica)243. **Compare** the original claim against verified information.254. **Output the verdict** using the format below.265. **Optionally annotate the notes file.** If the user confirms, use Edit to add a `(verified)` or `(corrected: {correct info})` tag next to the relevant entry in the notes file.2728## Output Format2930```31## Verification3233**Claim**: {the original claim as stated in the source}34**Verdict**: Confirmed | Needs correction | Incorrect | Unverifiable3536| Item | Original | Verified |37|------|----------|----------|38| {specific fact} | {as claimed} | {as verified} |3940**Source**: {single-line citation in the project's declared style — see `literature/reading_notes/_template_NOTES.md` for per-style examples; the active style is `Citation style:` in `CLAUDE.md`. Append the URL after the citation if the source is web-only}41**Confidence**: High | Medium | Low42**Notes**: {any additional context, e.g., "Date varies by edition" or "Multiple conflicting sources"}43```4445## Multiple Claims4647When verifying several claims at once, produce one verification block per claim, numbered sequentially:4849```50### 1. {Brief claim description}51{verification block}5253### 2. {Brief claim description}54{verification block}55```5657## Annotation5859When the user says "annotate" or "mark in notes" after verification:60- Use Edit to find the relevant passage in the notes file.61- Append the tag inline: `(verified 2026-03-30)` or `(corrected: {correct value}, verified 2026-03-30)`.62- Do not alter the original text of the note -- add the tag after it.6364## Constraints65661. **Never auto-correct notes** without user confirmation. Present the verdict first, then ask if the user wants to annotate.672. **Cite sources** with URLs whenever possible. Do not present unverifiable assertions as fact.683. **Acknowledge uncertainty.** If sources conflict, report all versions and mark confidence as Low.694. **No emoji** in output.705. **Scope**: This skill verifies factual claims only. For argument analysis or interpretation, defer to the user's own reading.