Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 待分类

verify-claims(验证索赔)

verify-claims 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。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。

verify-claims 是待分类类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有未通过项,按安装量在待分类类的 11,209 个 Skill 里排第 4,844。

总安装 661周安装 27GitHub Stars 66下载 212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
unknown

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:verify-claims(验证索赔)
来源仓库:https://github.com/indranilbanerjee/digital-marketing-pro
仓库路径:skills/verify-claims
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/indranilbanerjee/digital-marketing-pro --skill verify-claims
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 npx skills 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。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/indranilbanerjee/digital-marketing-pro --skill verify-claims

这个 Skill 是做什么的

这个 Skill 的分类还没最终确定,用法以来源仓库的说明为准。

verify-claims 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态进行整理时使用。适用于代码协作事项管理和仓库状态跟踪,可辅助处理开发流程中的协作问题。

通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装,需确认权限范围和维护状态。使用前建议核实是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写操作,确保符合安全边界。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/verify-claims

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 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;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 npx skills add https://github.com/indranilbanerjee/digital-marketing-pro --skill…;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

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

verify-claims 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/indranilbanerjee/digital-marketing-pro --skill verify-cl…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

verify-claims 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。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。

verify-claims 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

verify-claims 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

verify-claims 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 661 次,近一周安装 27 次,下载 212 次,GitHub 66 星。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。

verify-claims 安全吗?

第三方扫描有未通过项,风险较高。除非你确认过源码,否则不建议直接安装到常用环境。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 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 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理待分类类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

待分类类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
infsh-cli

infsh CLI · Codex、Claude

4,374,576382权限未标注未明确未收录
ai-video-generation

AI 视频生成 · Codex、Claude

4,313,376382调用外部服务未明确有提醒
lark-openapi-explorer

云雀 OpenAPI 浏览器 · Codex、Claude

2,064,1209,011需要联网未明确有提醒
lark-workflow-standup-report

Lark 工作流程站立报告 · Codex、Claude

2,041,6328,978需要联网未明确通过
use-my-browser

使用我的浏览器 · Codex、Claude

1,848,49140操作浏览器未明确未通过
verify-claims

验证索赔 · 本页

66166只读未明确未通过

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

/dm:verify-claims

Purpose

Cross-check marketing claims against user-provided evidence data. Extracts all verifiable claims from content — statistics, percentages, rankings, awards, certifications, named citations, performance metrics, customer counts, and time-bound assertions — then matches each against an evidence file and classifies it as verified, partially verified, unverified, or contradicted. This command is the dedicated deep-dive for claim integrity, while /dm:eval-content includes claim verification as one dimension of its broader quality assessment.

Marketing content that cites specific numbers, awards, or results without verified backing is a brand risk. Contradicted claims erode trust if caught by customers, journalists, or regulators. This command ensures every factual assertion in your content is backed by real data, clearly sourced, and defensible under scrutiny.

Input Required

The user must provide (or will be prompted for):

  • Content with claims: The text to verify — provided inline, as a pasted block, or as a file path. Any marketing content that makes factual assertions: landing pages, case studies, press releases, ad copy, pitch decks, investor materials, product pages, or client reports
  • Evidence file (optional but strongly recommended): A JSON file containing source data to verify against. Format: [{"claim": "descriptive claim text", "source": "data source name or URL", "date": "YYYY-MM-DD when verified", "verified": true/false, "value": "the verified number or fact"}]. Can be exported from GA4, CRM, sales data, certification bodies, or assembled manually. If not provided, the command operates in extraction-only mode and guides the user on creating an evidence file
  • Specific claim to check (optional): A single claim to focus on instead of scanning the full content — useful for quick spot-checks on a particular statistic or assertion

Process

  1. Load brand context: Read ~/.claude-marketing/brands/_active-brand.json for the active slug, then load ~/.claude-marketing/brands/{slug}/profile.json. Apply compliance rules for target markets (skills/context-engine/compliance-rules.md) — some industries and regions have stricter requirements for substantiating claims (financial services, healthcare, EU consumer protection). Also check for guidelines at ~/.claude-marketing/brands/{slug}/guidelines/_manifest.json — if present, load messaging restrictions that may define approved claims and prohibited assertions. Check for agency SOPs at ~/.claude-marketing/sops/. If no brand exists, ask: "Set up a brand first (/dm:brand-setup)?" — or proceed with defaults.
  2. Extract claims from content: Execute scripts/claim-verifier.py --action extract-claims --text "{content}" to identify all verifiable assertions. The extractor categorizes claims by type:

- Statistical claims: Percentages, ratios, growth numbers, market size figures ("73% increase in conversions," "4.8x ROAS") - Ranking claims: Position assertions, comparative statements ("market leader," "#1 rated," "fastest-growing") - Award and certification claims: Named awards, industry certifications, compliance badges ("ISO 27001 certified," "G2 Leader") - Named citation claims: Attributed quotes, source references, study citations ("according to Gartner," "Forrester reports") - Performance claims: Customer counts, time-bound results, SLA promises ("10,000+ customers," "results in 30 days") - Temporal claims: Date-specific assertions, recency claims ("as of 2026," "latest data shows")

  1. Verify claims against evidence: If an evidence file is provided, execute scripts/claim-verifier.py --action verify --text "{content}" --evidence {evidence_file}. For each extracted claim, the verifier:

- Attempts to match the claim to an evidence entry by semantic similarity and claim type - Classifies the match result: Verified (claim matches evidence within acceptable tolerance), Partially verified (claim is directionally correct but specific numbers differ, or the source date is stale), Unverified (no matching evidence entry found), or Contradicted (evidence directly conflicts with the claim) - Assigns a confidence score (0-100) to each verification based on match quality, source recency, and specificity alignment

  1. Handle missing evidence file: If no evidence file is provided, skip the verification step. Instead, present all extracted claims with their types and flag each as "unverified — no evidence provided." Guide the user on creating an evidence file:

- Explain the JSON format with examples for each claim type - Suggest data sources: GA4 for performance metrics, CRM for customer counts, certification bodies for awards, published reports for industry statistics - Offer to generate a template evidence file pre-populated with the extracted claims (values left blank for the user to fill)

  1. Detail contradictions: For each contradicted claim, present a side-by-side comparison: the claim text as written in the content, the evidence data that conflicts, the specific discrepancy (e.g., "content says 73% increase, evidence shows 61% increase"), and the potential impact of publishing the incorrect claim (reputational, regulatory, competitive).
  2. Recommend corrections: For unverified and contradicted claims, provide specific recommendations:

- Contradicted claims: Suggest corrected text using the evidence value, with hedging language options if exact figures are sensitive ("approximately," "over X," "nearly Y") - Unverified claims: Suggest adding source attribution, softening absolute statements to qualified ones, or removing the claim until evidence is available - Stale evidence: Flag claims where the evidence date is more than 12 months old and recommend refreshing the data

  1. Generate verification summary: Produce an overall verification score (percentage of claims verified or partially verified), a risk assessment based on the number and severity of contradicted and unverified claims, and a compliance note if the brand operates in a regulated industry where unsubstantiated claims carry legal risk.

Output

A structured verification report containing:

  • Verification score: Percentage of claims that are verified or partially verified — the headline metric for content claim integrity
  • Claims inventory: Total claims extracted, broken down by type (statistical, ranking, award, citation, performance, temporal) — showing the scope of factual assertions in the content
  • Per-claim verification results: For each claim:

- The claim text as it appears in the content, with location - Claim type classification - Verification status: Verified, Partially verified, Unverified, or Contradicted - Evidence match: The specific evidence entry it was checked against (if any), with source and date - Confidence score (0-100) for the verification - Issue details: For partially verified or contradicted claims, the specific discrepancy - Recommended action: Keep as-is, update with correct value, add source attribution, soften language, or remove

  • Contradiction details: Side-by-side comparison for each contradicted claim — content text vs. evidence data, with the specific discrepancy highlighted and corrected text suggestion
  • Unverified claims list: All claims with no matching evidence, grouped by risk level (high-risk: specific numbers and absolute statements; moderate-risk: comparative claims and rankings; low-risk: general qualitative assertions)
  • Stale evidence warnings: Claims where the supporting evidence is older than 12 months, with a recommendation to refresh the data
  • Corrected text suggestions: For each claim needing correction, the original text and one or more replacement options — an exact-value version using the evidence data and a hedged version with qualifier language
  • Evidence file template: If no evidence file was provided, a pre-populated JSON template with all extracted claims ready for the user to fill in verified values and sources
  • Compliance notes: If the brand operates in a regulated industry (financial services, healthcare, legal, insurance), specific regulatory requirements for claim substantiation with references to relevant rules (FTC Act, EU Consumer Rights Directive, ASA CAP Code, industry-specific regulations)

Agents Used

  • quality-assurance — Claim extraction from content using pattern matching and NLP heuristics, claim-to-evidence matching with semantic similarity and type alignment, verification status classification with confidence scoring, contradiction detection with discrepancy quantification, correction text generation with hedging options, and compliance-aware risk assessment for regulated industries

平台分布

Codex

33.77%
按下载量换算72

Claude

30.91%
按下载量换算66

Cursor

17.1%
按下载量换算36

Gemini CLI

9.88%
按下载量换算21

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

未通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

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。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。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