article-fact-checker

三层审查模型,逐段逐句验证文章真伪、证据链与逻辑结构。Use when the user asks to fact-check, verify, audit, or evaluate the credibility of an article, essay, report, opinion piece, social-media post, or any written claim — including checking logical consistency, evidence chains, source reliability, fabrication, non-quantifiable conclusions, and producing a scored report with original-text citations.

Quality

89%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

78%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a well-structured, mostly lean six-pass workflow with concrete search commands and an evidence-chain template, supported by a clean one-level reference bundle. The main gaps are mild verbosity and feedback loops that are implicit rather than spelled out as retry-on-failure steps.

Suggestions

Tighten the body for token efficiency: the 时间预算参考 table and the '关键洞察' line add length without changing the procedure — condense or move to a reference.

Add explicit failure/retry feedback loops, e.g. 'if reverse search contradicts the evidence → re-rate it as fabrication and re-run Pass 4 on adjacent claims', to reach the top workflow_clarity anchor.

Show one fully instantiated reverse-search command example (with a real-looking query) alongside the template syntax so the actionability is copy-paste ready rather than schematic.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is largely lean and assumes Claude's competence — no basic-concept padding — but the time-budget table and a few explanatory lines (e.g., '关键洞察') could be trimmed, keeping it just below the top anchor.	4 / 5
Actionability	It provides concrete, copy-pasteable guidance — reverse-search command templates (data:"<具体数字>", <作者> <期刊> <年份>), a tool chain, an ASCII evidence-chain template, and a runnable script — with only minor gaps where guidance points to references rather than showing the action inline.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The six-pass workflow is clearly sequenced with per-pass time budgets and verification-style steps (Pass 4 三角验证, Pass 6 证据链 with checkbox checklist), but explicit 'if X fails → do Y' feedback loops are only weakly present, keeping it below 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	SKILL.md is a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references (references/*.md, scripts/evidence-extractor.py, assets/report-template.md), all of which exist as real files, and detail is appropriately split out rather than inlined.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is strong across all four dimensions: it states concrete capabilities, includes comprehensive natural trigger terms, answers both what and when, and occupies a distinct niche. Minor weakness is verbosity from the long em-dash clause, but every item is substantive rather than fluff.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists multiple concrete actions (逐段逐句验证文章真伪、证据链与逻辑结构; checking logical consistency, evidence chains, source reliability, fabrication, non-quantifiable conclusions; producing a scored report with citations), giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities.	5 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both 'what' (三层审查模型,逐段逐句验证...) and 'when' (Use when the user asks to fact-check, verify, audit...) with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It covers natural user phrasing comprehensively — 'fact-check, verify, audit, or evaluate the credibility' — plus the document types users would name (article, essay, report, opinion piece, social-media post, any written claim), including synonyms.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Article fact-checking/credibility auditing is a clear niche with distinct triggers, and the explicit '不适用' scope (改写/翻译/总结/从零写) is not in the description, but the listed triggers are specific enough to minimize conflict risk.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: digoal/blog
Path: skills/article-fact-checker/SKILL.md
Commit: 3b9c83d

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.