Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

ln-614-docs-fact-checker(ln 614 文档事实检查器)

用于辅助文档、README、Markdown、说明文和内容稿件的整理与改写。它适合让 Agent 提炼结构、补齐章节、统一术语、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档。使用时应保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不要把未确认的信息写成确定结论;涉及对外文案时,还需要控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。

ln-614-docs-fact-checker 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为接触敏感数据;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 27,059。

总安装 3,457周安装 147GitHub Stars 441下载 1,211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:ln-614-docs-fact-checker(ln 614 文档事实检查器)
来源仓库:https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills
仓库路径:skills/ln-614-docs-fact-checker
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-614-docs-fact-checker
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/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-614-docs-fact-checker

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于文档、README 和内容稿件的整理与改写,适合提炼结构和统一术语。适用于需要补齐章节、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档的场景。使用时保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不把未确认信息写成确定结论。涉及对外文案时需控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。安装前建议确认权限范围和维护状态,确保不会触发不必要的网络或文件操作。

来源仓库内路径:skills/ln-614-docs-fact-checker

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/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-6…;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

ln-614-docs-fact-checker 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-614-docs-fa…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

ln-614-docs-fact-checker 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。

ln-614-docs-fact-checker 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。

ln-614-docs-fact-checker 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。

ln-614-docs-fact-checker 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 3,457 次,近一周安装 147 次,下载 1,211 次,GitHub 441 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。

ln-614-docs-fact-checker 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

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。

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。
  • 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。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

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。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
ln-614-docs-fact-checker

ln 614 文档事实检查器 · 本页

3,457441接触敏感数据未明确有提醒

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

Paths: File paths (shared/, references/, ../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root. If shared/ is missing, fetch files via WebFetch from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/master/skills/{path}.

Documentation Fact-Checker (L3 Worker)

Type: L3 Worker

Specialized worker that extracts verifiable claims from documentation and validates each against the actual codebase.

Purpose & Scope

  • Prioritize canonical and high-claim docs, then extract verifiable claims from markdown documentation
  • Verify each claim against codebase (Grep/Glob/Read/Bash)
  • Detect cross-document contradictions (same fact stated differently)
  • Includes docs/reference/, docs/tasks/, tests/ in scope
  • Single invocation (not per-document) -> cross-doc checks require global view
  • Does NOT check scope alignment or structural quality

Inputs

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md, shared/references/docs_quality_contract.md, shared/references/docs_quality_rules.json, shared/references/markdown_read_protocol.md, shared/references/mcp_tool_preferences.md, and shared/references/mcp_integration_patterns.md.

Receives contextStore with: tech_stack, project_root, output_dir.

Workflow

Phase 1: Parse Context

Extract tech stack, project root, output_dir from contextStore.

Phase 2: Discover Documents

Glob markdown docs in project. Exclude:

  • node_modules/, .git/, dist/, build/
  • docs/project/.audit/ (audit output, not project docs)
  • CHANGELOG.md (historical by design)

If docs/project/.context/doc_registry.json exists:

  • load it first
  • prioritize doc_role=canonical
  • prioritize files with dense claim types (paths, endpoints, versions, commands)
  • de-prioritize navigation hubs unless contradictions point back to them

Phase 3: Extract Claims (Layer 1)

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/two_layer_detection.md for detection methodology.

For each prioritized document, use section-first reads to extract verifiable claims using Grep/regex patterns.

For code files referenced by docs, use outline() and discovery-first read_file() before built-in reads. Only request edit_ready=true, verbosity="full" if verification turns into a follow-up edit. Use hex-graph only when entity identity or reference resolution remains ambiguous after direct manifest/file checks.

MANDATORY READ: Load references/claim_extraction_rules.md for detailed extraction patterns per claim type.

9 claim types:

#Claim TypeWhat to ExtractExtraction Pattern
1File pathsPaths to source files, dirs, configsBacktick paths, link targets matching src/, lib/, app/, docs/, config/, tests/
2VersionsPackage/tool/image versionsSemver patterns near dependency/package/image names
3Counts/StatisticsNumeric claims about codebase`\d+ (modules
4API endpointsHTTP method + path`(GET
5Config keys/env varsEnvironment variables, config keys[A-Z][A-Z_]{2,} in config context, process.env., os.environ
6CLI commandsShell commandsnpm run, python, docker, make in backtick blocks
7Function/class namesCode entity referencesCamelCase/snake_case in backticks or code context
8Line number refsfile:line patterns[\w/.]+:\d+ patterns
9Docker/infra claimsImage tags, ports, service namesImage names with tags, port mappings in docker context

Output per claim: {doc_path, line, claim_type, claim_value, raw_context}.

Phase 4: Verify Claims (Layer 2)

For each extracted claim, verify against codebase:

Claim TypeVerification MethodFinding Type
File pathsGlob or ls for existencePATH_NOT_FOUND
VersionsGrep package files (package.json, requirements.txt, docker-compose.yml), compareVERSION_MISMATCH
CountsGlob/Grep to count actual entities, compare with claimed numberCOUNT_MISMATCH
API endpointsGrep route/controller definitionsENDPOINT_NOT_FOUND
Config keysGrep in source for actual usageCONFIG_NOT_FOUND
CLI commandsCheck package.json scripts, Makefile targets, binary existenceCOMMAND_NOT_FOUND
Function/classGrep in source for definitionENTITY_NOT_FOUND
Line numbersRead file at line, check content matches claimed contextLINE_MISMATCH
Docker/infraGrep docker-compose.yml for image tags, portsINFRA_MISMATCH

False positive filtering (Layer 2 reasoning):

  • Template placeholders ({placeholder}, YOUR_*, <project>, xxx) -> skip
  • Example/hypothetical paths (preceded by "e.g.", "for example", "such as") -> skip
  • Future-tense claims ("will add", "planned", "TODO") -> skip or LOW
  • Conditional claims ("if using X, configure Y") -> verify only if X detected in tech_stack
  • External service paths (URLs, external repos) -> skip
  • Paths in SCOPE/comment HTML blocks describing other projects -> skip
  • .env.example values -> skip (expected to differ from actual)

Phase 5: Cross-Document Consistency

Compare extracted claims across documents to find contradictions:

CheckMethodFinding Type
Same path, different locationsGroup file path claims, check if all point to same real pathCROSS_DOC_PATH_CONFLICT
Same entity, different versionGroup version claims by entity name, compare valuesCROSS_DOC_VERSION_CONFLICT
Same metric, different countGroup count claims by subject, compare valuesCROSS_DOC_COUNT_CONFLICT
Endpoint in spec but not in guideCompare endpoint claims across api_spec.md vs guides/runbookCROSS_DOC_ENDPOINT_GAP

Algorithm:

claim_index = {}  # key: normalized(claim_type + entity), value: [{doc, line, value}]
FOR claim IN all_verified_claims WHERE claim.verified == true:
  key = normalize(claim.claim_type, claim.entity_name)
  claim_index[key].append({doc: claim.doc_path, line: claim.line, value: claim.claim_value})

FOR key, entries IN claim_index:
  unique_values = set(entry.value for entry in entries)
  IF len(unique_values) > 1:
    CREATE finding(type=CROSS_DOC_*_CONFLICT, severity=HIGH,
      location=entries[0].doc + ":" + entries[0].line,
      issue="'" + key + "' stated as '" + val1 + "' in " + doc1 + " but '" + val2 + "' in " + doc2)

Phase 6: Score & Report

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/references/audit_scoring.md.

Calculate score using penalty formula. Write report.

Audit Categories (for Checks table)

IDCheckWhat It Covers
path_claimsFile/Directory PathsAll path references verified against filesystem
version_claimsVersion NumbersPackage, tool, image versions against manifests
count_claimsCounts & StatisticsNumeric assertions against actual counts
endpoint_claimsAPI EndpointsRoute definitions against controllers/routers
config_claimsConfig & Env VarsEnvironment variables, config keys against source
command_claimsCLI CommandsScripts, commands against package.json/Makefile
entity_claimsCode Entity NamesFunctions, classes against source definitions
line_ref_claimsLine Number Referencesfile:line against actual file content
cross_docCross-Document ConsistencySame facts across documents agree

Severity Mapping

Issue TypeSeverityRationale
PATH_NOT_FOUND (critical file: AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, runbook, api_spec)CRITICALSetup/onboarding fails
PATH_NOT_FOUND (other docs)HIGHMisleading reference
VERSION_MISMATCH (major version)HIGHFundamentally wrong
VERSION_MISMATCH (minor/patch)MEDIUMCosmetic drift
COUNT_MISMATCHMEDIUMMisleading metric
ENDPOINT_NOT_FOUNDHIGHAPI consumers affected
CONFIG_NOT_FOUNDHIGHDeployment breaks
COMMAND_NOT_FOUNDHIGHSetup/CI breaks
ENTITY_NOT_FOUNDMEDIUMConfusion
LINE_MISMATCHLOWMinor inaccuracy
INFRA_MISMATCHHIGHDocker/deployment affected
CROSS_DOC_*_CONFLICTHIGHTrust erosion, contradictory docs

Output Format

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md.

Write JSON summary per shared/references/audit_summary_contract.md. In managed mode the caller passes both runId and summaryArtifactPath; in standalone mode the worker generates its own run-scoped artifact path per shared contract.

Write report to {output_dir}/ln-614--global.md with category: "Fact Accuracy" and checks: path_claims, version_claims, count_claims, endpoint_claims, config_claims, command_claims, entity_claims, line_ref_claims, cross_doc.

Return summary per shared/references/audit_summary_contract.md.

When summaryArtifactPath is absent, write the standalone runtime summary under .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/evaluation-worker/{worker}--{identifier}.json and optionally echo the same summary in structured output.

Report written: .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/audit-report/ln-614--global.md
Score: X.X/10 | Issues: N (C:N H:N M:N L:N)

Critical Rules

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • Do not auto-fix: Report violations only; coordinator aggregates for user
  • Code is truth: When docs contradict code, document is wrong (unless code is a bug)
  • Evidence required: Every finding includes verification command used and result
  • No false positives: Better to miss an issue than report incorrectly. When uncertain, classify as LOW with note
  • Location precision: Always include file:line for programmatic navigation
  • Broad scope: Scan ALL.md files -- do not skip docs/reference/, tests/, or task docs
  • Targeted depth: Spend the deepest verification effort on canonical and high-claim docs first
  • Cross-doc matters: Contradictions between documents erode trust more than single-doc errors
  • Batch efficiently: Extract all claims first, then verify in batches by type (all paths together, all versions together)
  • Shared placeholder policy: Respect allowlisted setup placeholders from docs_quality_rules.json; do not escalate them in task setup docs
  • Use hex-graph only for semantic ambiguity: For code entities and references, prefer graph queries over repeated grep only when direct manifest/file checks leave symbol identity or reference resolution ambiguous

Definition of Done

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • contextStore parsed successfully (including output_dir)
  • All .md files discovered (broad scope)
  • Claims extracted across 9 types
  • Each claim verified against codebase with evidence
  • Cross-document consistency checked
  • False positives filtered via Layer 2 reasoning
  • Score calculated using penalty algorithm
  • Report written to {output_dir}/ln-614--global.md (atomic single Write call)
  • Summary written per contract

Reference Files

  • Audit output schema: shared/references/audit_output_schema.md
  • Detection methodology: shared/references/two_layer_detection.md
  • Claim extraction rules: references/claim_extraction_rules.md

Version: 1.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-03-06

平台分布

Codex

38.05%
按下载量换算461

Claude

31.72%
按下载量换算384

Cursor

17.83%
按下载量换算216

Gemini CLI

10.08%
按下载量换算122

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

可疑

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

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。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