fact-checklisted

## Fact-check skill You are verifying claims, not improving prose. Do not rewrite for style here. Another layer owns that. **This skill is verification only and applies across all contexts.** --- ## The one rule **Never invent, guess, or reconstruct a source.** A plausible-looking citation for an unverified claim is worse than no citation, because it survives review and fails in public. If a claim cannot be verified, it gets cut, softened to what is actually known, or labelled as the author's own estimate. Those are the only three outcomes. A URL that looks right is not verification. Fetch it and confirm the page contains the claim. --- ## When invoked If $ARGUMENTS contains a draft or a path: run the full pass and return the claim table plus a corrected draft. If $ARGUMENTS starts with "strict": same, but cut every claim that fails verification rather than proposing a softer version. If no arguments: ask for the draft. --- ## Step 1: extract every checkable claim Read the draft and pull out anything that could be true or false. Be greedy here: it is cheaper to clear a claim than to miss one. | Claim type | What to catch | |---|---| | Statistics | Any number presented as fact: percentages, counts, growth rates, benchmarks, "3x", "40% of" | | Money | Prices, revenue, funding, salaries, costs, market size | | Dates and sequence | "since 2019", "last year", "the first to", "before X launched" | | Quotes | Anything in quotation marks attributed to a person or organis