fact-checker
Verifies factual claims in documents using web search and official sources, then proposes corrections with user confirmation. Use when the user asks to fact-check, verify information, validate claims, check accuracy, or update outdated information in documents. Supports AI model specs, technical documentation, statistics, and general factual statements.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:daymade/claude-code-skills --skill fact-checkerOverall
score
88%
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is an excellent skill description that hits all the key criteria. It provides specific actions, comprehensive trigger terms that users would naturally use, explicitly addresses both what and when, and carves out a distinct niche for fact-checking that won't conflict with other document or research skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple concrete actions: 'Verifies factual claims', 'using web search and official sources', 'proposes corrections with user confirmation'. Also specifies supported content types: 'AI model specs, technical documentation, statistics, and general factual statements'. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what ('Verifies factual claims in documents using web search and official sources, then proposes corrections') and when ('Use when the user asks to fact-check, verify information, validate claims, check accuracy, or update outdated information'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'fact-check', 'verify information', 'validate claims', 'check accuracy', 'update outdated information'. These are all phrases users would naturally use when needing this skill. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focused specifically on fact-checking and verification with distinct triggers. The combination of 'factual claims', 'web search', 'official sources', and 'corrections with user confirmation' creates a unique profile unlikely to conflict with general document editing or research skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, actionable skill with excellent workflow clarity and explicit validation checkpoints. The main weaknesses are moderate verbosity (explaining concepts like source evaluation that Claude knows) and a monolithic structure that could benefit from splitting detailed reference material into separate files. The explicit user approval gate before applying corrections is a strong safety feature.
Suggestions
Move 'Search best practices' and 'Special considerations' sections to a separate REFERENCE.md file, keeping only essential guidance inline
Remove or condense the 'Skip subjective content' list and 'Source evaluation' tiers - Claude understands these distinctions
Remove the 'When to use' section as trigger phrases belong in frontmatter description, not body content
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably efficient but includes some unnecessary content like explaining what to skip (subjective content), basic search strategy tips Claude already knows, and verbose examples. The 'When to use' section duplicates trigger information that should be in frontmatter. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, executable guidance throughout: specific search query examples, comparison table format, structured report template, actual Edit tool usage with realistic parameters, and clear status codes. The workflow is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Excellent multi-step workflow with explicit checkpoints: includes a progress checklist, clear step sequencing, explicit user approval gate before destructive changes (Step 5), and verification after corrections. The feedback loop for handling ambiguity is well-defined. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well-organized with clear sections, but the skill is monolithic at ~250 lines. The search best practices, special considerations, and examples sections could be split into separate reference files. No external file references are provided for deeper content. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
88%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 14 / 16 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
metadata_version | 'metadata' field is not a dictionary | Warning |
license_field | 'license' field is missing | Warning |
Total | 14 / 16 Passed | |
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.