Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

cm-hallucination-detector(cm 幻觉探测器)

cm-hallucination-detector 用于整理文档、README、Markdown 和说明材料,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要把零散信息整理成结构清晰的文档时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

cm-hallucination-detector 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为接触敏感数据;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 12,812。

总安装 1,117周安装 47GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 391核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT-0
版本
1.0.0

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:cm-hallucination-detector(cm 幻觉探测器)
来源仓库:https://github.com/charlie-morrison/cm-hallucination-detector
安装命令:
openclaw skills install cm-hallucination-detector
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install cm-hallucination-detector

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

用于检测 LLM 输出中的幻觉声明,通过交叉引用源文档和代码进行验证。适用于 RAG 管道和知识库问答系统的可信度保障场景。通过 clawhub 安装,需结合 README 了解证据匹配算法阈值设置。使用前应确认源材料覆盖范围和误判率控制策略。

cm-hallucination-detector 属于开发类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 openclaw skills install cm-hallucination-detector;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要接触敏感数据,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

cm-hallucination-detector 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install cm-hallucination-detector。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

cm-hallucination-detector 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

cm-hallucination-detector 需要什么权限?

权限级别是接触敏感数据。该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

cm-hallucination-detector 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

cm-hallucination-detector 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,117 次,近一周安装 47 次,下载 391 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

cm-hallucination-detector 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 需要接触敏感数据,装到常用环境前要先评估影响面。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 环境里有大量密钥、凭证,不方便给第三方 Skill 读取的人。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
cm-hallucination-detector

cm 幻觉探测器 · 本页

1,117—接触敏感数据MIT-0通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

name
hallucination-detector
description
Detect and flag hallucinations in LLM outputs by cross-referencing claims against source documents, code, and verifiable data. Essential for RAG pipelines and AI content review.
metadata
tags
["ai", "llm", "hallucination", "rag", "quality", "factcheck"]

Hallucination Detector

Detect and flag hallucinations in LLM-generated content by cross-referencing claims against source documents, codebase facts, API documentation, and verifiable data. Use when reviewing AI-generated documentation, code comments, summaries, or any content that needs factual accuracy.

Usage

"Check this AI-generated summary for hallucinations against the source docs"
"Verify the code documentation matches the actual implementation"
"Detect hallucinations in this RAG pipeline output"
"Fact-check this AI-generated API reference"
"Review these generated release notes for accuracy"

How It Works

1. Claim Extraction

Parse the LLM output and identify verifiable claims:

  • Factual assertions: "The function accepts 3 parameters", "The API returns JSON"
  • Numerical claims: "Performance improved by 40%", "Supports up to 10,000 connections"
  • Reference claims: "As documented in RFC 7231", "According to the README"
  • Code claims: "The processOrder() function handles refunds", "Uses AES-256 encryption"
  • Temporal claims: "Added in version 2.3", "Deprecated since 2024"
  • Relational claims: "Module A depends on Module B", "Function X calls Function Y"

2. Source Grounding

For each claim, identify and query the ground truth source:

Code verification:

# Verify function exists and has claimed signature
grep -rn "function processOrder\|def processOrder\|processOrder(" src/
# Verify parameter count
ast-grep --pattern 'function processOrder($$$)' src/
# Verify dependency relationship
grep -rn "import.*from.*moduleB\|require.*moduleB" src/moduleA/

Documentation verification:

# Check if referenced section exists
grep -rn "## Configuration" docs/
# Verify version claims
git log --oneline --all --grep="processOrder" | head -5
git tag --contains $(git log --format=%H -1 --all -- src/processOrder.ts)

API verification:

# Verify endpoint exists and returns claimed schema
grep -rn "router\.\(get\|post\|put\|delete\)" src/routes/ | grep "orders"
# Check response schema
grep -A 20 "res.json\|res.send" src/routes/orders.ts

3. Hallucination Classification

Each detected issue is classified:

  • 🔴 Fabrication: Claim has no basis in source material (made up entirely)

- Example: "The calculateTax() function" when no such function exists

  • 🟠 Contradiction: Claim directly contradicts source material

- Example: "Returns a string" when function actually returns a number

  • 🟡 Exaggeration: Claim overstates or embellishes source facts

- Example: "Handles millions of requests" when docs say "tested to 10K"

  • 🔵 Outdated: Claim was true but is no longer accurate

- Example: "Uses Express.js" when codebase migrated to Fastify

  • ⚪ Unverifiable: Claim cannot be checked against available sources

- Example: "Industry best practice" with no citation

4. Confidence Scoring

Each claim gets a confidence score:

  • Verified (✅ 90-100%): Claim matches source material exactly
  • Likely correct (🟢 70-89%): Claim is consistent but not directly verifiable
  • Uncertain (🟡 40-69%): Partial match or ambiguous source
  • Likely hallucinated (🟠 10-39%): Contradicts or unsupported by sources
  • Confirmed hallucination (🔴 0-9%): Demonstrably false

5. RAG Pipeline Analysis

When used in RAG context, also check:

  • Retrieval accuracy: Were the right chunks retrieved for the query?
  • Attribution fidelity: Does the output actually reflect the retrieved chunks?
  • Chunk boundary issues: Was a claim split across chunks, losing context?
  • Source mixing: Were facts from different sources incorrectly combined?
  • Inference vs citation: Is the model inferring beyond what sources state?

6. Pattern Detection

Identify common hallucination patterns:

  • Confident fabrication: High-confidence claims about nonexistent features
  • Plausible details: Made-up but realistic-sounding specifics
  • Version confusion: Mixing features from different software versions
  • Name substitution: Using similar but incorrect function/class names
  • Count inflation: Overstating numbers, capabilities, or performance
  • False relationships: Inventing connections between unrelated components

Output

## Hallucination Analysis Report

**Content reviewed:** AI-generated API documentation (2,400 words)
**Claims extracted:** 47
**Verification results:**

| Status | Count | % |
|--------|-------|---|
| ✅ Verified | 31 | 66% |
| 🟢 Likely correct | 6 | 13% |
| 🟡 Uncertain | 3 | 6% |
| 🔴 Hallucinated | 7 | 15% |

### 🔴 Confirmed Hallucinations

1. **"The /api/users endpoint supports bulk operations via POST /api/users/bulk"**
   - Reality: No bulk endpoint exists in routes/users.ts
   - Type: Fabrication
   - Fix: Remove bulk operations section entirely

2. **"Authentication uses OAuth 2.0 with PKCE flow"**
   - Reality: Uses session-based auth (express-session + passport-local)
   - Type: Contradiction
   - Fix: Replace with actual auth mechanism description

3. **"Rate limited to 1000 requests per minute per API key"**
   - Reality: No rate limiting configured (no rate-limit middleware found)
   - Type: Fabrication
   - Fix: Remove rate limiting claims or implement the feature

4. **"Response includes pagination metadata with total_count, page, and per_page"**
   - Reality: API returns raw arrays without pagination
   - Type: Fabrication
   - Fix: Document actual response format

[3 more...]

### 🟡 Uncertain Claims (need human review)

5. **"Handles up to 5,000 concurrent connections"**
   - No load testing data found — may be true but unverified
   
### 📊 Hallucination Hotspots
- Performance claims: 3/4 hallucinated (75%)
- Feature descriptions: 2/18 hallucinated (11%)
- Security section: 2/8 hallucinated (25%)

### 💡 Recommendations
- Performance section needs complete rewrite with actual benchmarks
- Security section should be reviewed by the auth team
- Consider adding integration tests that validate API documentation accuracy

Integration

  • CI pipeline: Run on generated docs before merge
  • RAG applications: Post-processing step to filter hallucinated content
  • Content review: Batch-check AI-generated articles or documentation
  • Code review: Verify AI-generated code comments match implementation

平台分布

OpenClaw

88.05%
按下载量换算344

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

接触敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills