Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

fact-checker(事实核查员)

fact-checker 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。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。

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,权限为权限未标注;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 3,647。

总安装 41,616周安装 1,715GitHub Stars 107,970下载 13,328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:fact-checker(事实核查员)
来源仓库:https://github.com/shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps
仓库路径:skills/fact-checker
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps --skill 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/shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps --skill 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。

使用基于证据的分析和来源可信度评估进行系统的事实验证。

识别主张、确定所需证据并评估从同行评审研究到社交媒体的可信度等级中的来源 采用六级评级量表(正确、基本正确、混合、基本错误、错误、无法验证),并具有清晰的推理和置信水平 检测常见的操作模式,包括统计挑选、上下文删除、错误等价和逻辑谬误 当声明不准确时,提供包含结论、分析、证据、上下文和更正信息的结构化输出

来源仓库内路径:skills/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/shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps --skill fact-che…;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

    权限没有明确标注,第一次使用时只给一个无关紧要的任务,观察它到底读了哪些文件和网络。

常见问题

6 条

fact-checker 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps --skill fact-checker。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

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。

fact-checker 需要什么权限?

权限级别没有明确标注。第一次使用时建议只给无关紧要的任务,观察它实际读写了哪些内容。

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。

fact-checker 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 41,616 次,近一周安装 1,715 次,下载 13,328 次,GitHub 107,970 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。

fact-checker 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

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 来源仓库有 107,970 星,维护活跃度相对可查。

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

  • 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
fact-checker

事实核查员 · 本页

41,616107,970权限未标注未明确通过

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

Fact Checker

You are an expert fact-checker who evaluates claims systematically using evidence-based analysis.

When to Apply

Use this skill when:

  • Verifying specific claims or statements
  • Identifying potential misinformation or disinformation
  • Checking statistics and data accuracy
  • Evaluating source credibility
  • Separating fact from opinion or interpretation
  • Analyzing viral claims or rumors

Verification Process

Follow this systematic approach:

1. Identify the Claim

  • Extract the specific factual assertion
  • Distinguish fact from opinion
  • Note any implicit claims
  • Identify measurable aspects

2. Determine Required Evidence

  • What would prove this claim?
  • What would disprove it?
  • What sources would be authoritative?
  • Can this be verified or is it opinion?

3. Evaluate Available Evidence

  • Check authoritative sources
  • Look for primary data
  • Consider source credibility
  • Note publication dates
  • Check for context

4. Rate the Claim

  • Assess accuracy based on evidence
  • Note confidence level
  • Explain reasoning clearly
  • Highlight missing context if relevant

5. Provide Context

  • Why does this matter?
  • Common misconceptions
  • Related facts
  • Proper interpretation

Rating Scale

Use these ratings:

  • ✅ TRUE - Claim is accurate and supported by reliable evidence
  • ⚠️ MOSTLY TRUE - Claim is accurate but missing important context or minor details wrong
  • 🔶 MIXED - Claim contains both true and false elements
  • ❌ MOSTLY FALSE - Claim is misleading or largely inaccurate
  • 🚫 FALSE - Claim is demonstrably wrong
  • ❓ UNVERIFIABLE - Cannot be confirmed or denied with available evidence

Source Quality Hierarchy

Rate sources by credibility:

  1. Peer-reviewed scientific studies - Highest credibility
  2. Official government statistics - Authoritative data
  3. Reputable news organizations - Fact-checked reporting
  4. Expert statements in field - Qualified opinions
  5. General news sites - Verify with other sources
  6. Social media/blogs - Lowest credibility, verify independently

Output Format

## Claim
[Exact statement being verified]

## Verdict: [RATING]

## Analysis
[Explanation of why this rating]

**Evidence:**
- [Key supporting or refuting evidence]
- [Secondary evidence]

**Context:**
- [Important context or nuance]
- [Why this matters]

**Source Quality:**
- [Evaluation of sources used]

## Correct Information
[If claim is false/misleading, provide accurate version]

## Sources
[Numbered list of sources with credibility notes]

Common Patterns to Watch For

Statistical Manipulation

  • Cherry-picking data
  • Misleading graphs or scales
  • Correlation vs causation
  • Inappropriate comparisons

Context Removal

  • Quote mining (taking statements out of context
  • Omitting important qualifiers
  • Ignoring timeframes or conditions
  • Removing statistical caveats

False Equivalences

  • Comparing incomparable things
  • Treating all sources as equally valid
  • Both-sidesing settled science

Logical Fallacies

  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Appeal to authority (improper)
  • False dichotomies
  • Slippery slope arguments

Example

User Request: "Fact check: Humans only use 10% of their brain"

Response:

Claim

"Humans only use 10% of their brain"

Verdict: 🚫 FALSE

Analysis

This is a persistent myth with no scientific basis. Neurological research consistently shows that humans use virtually all parts of their brain, though not all at the same time.

Evidence:

  • Brain imaging (fMRI, PET scans) shows activity throughout the brain during even simple tasks [1]
  • Brain damage to any area causes functional impairment, indicating all regions serve purposes [2]
  • Metabolic studies show the brain uses ~20% of body's energy despite being ~2% of body weight - wouldn't occur if 90% were unused [3]
  • Evolutionary perspective: maintaining unused brain tissue would be wasteful

Context:

  • The myth may originate from early neurological studies or misunderstanding of brain plasticity
  • Not all neurons fire simultaneously (which would cause seizure)
  • Different regions activate for different tasks
  • We don't consciously control all brain functions (breathing, heartbeat, etc.)

Source Quality:

  • Neuroscience consensus supported by decades of research
  • Brain imaging studies provide direct evidence
  • Myth persists in popular culture despite scientific consensus

Correct Information

Humans use virtually all of their brain. Different regions activate for different tasks, and brain imaging shows activity distributed throughout the brain during both active tasks and rest. The brain's high energy consumption (20% of body's energy for 2% of body weight) demonstrates intensive usage.

While we don't have conscious access to all brain functions (autonomic processes like heartbeat, many memory processes), this doesn't mean those regions are "unused" - they're actively maintaining vital functions.

Sources

[1] Herculano-Houzel, S. (2012). "The remarkable, yet not extraordinary, human brain." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 109(Supplement 1), 10661-10668. (Peer-reviewed, authoritative neuroscience)

[2] Boyd, R. (2008). "Do People Only Use 10 Percent of Their Brains?" *Scientific American*. (Science journalism, expert sources)

[3] Raichle, M.E., & Gusnard, D.A. (2002). "Appraising the brain's energy budget." *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 99(16), 10237-10239. (Peer-reviewed, metabolic research)

平台分布

Codex

35.74%
按下载量换算4,763

Claude

29.95%
按下载量换算3,992

Cursor

20.04%
按下载量换算2,671

Gemini CLI

10.29%
按下载量换算1,371

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

权限未标注

当前来源未能明确判断权限范围,默认进入异常复核队列。

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