$npx -y skills add yha9806/academic-writing-toolkit --skill verifyFact-check claims encountered during reading — dates, names, events, citations. Use when encountering historical facts or disputed claims.
| 1 | # /verify — Fact Verification Skill |
| 2 | |
| 3 | ## Purpose |
| 4 | |
| 5 | Fact-check claims encountered during reading sessions. This covers dates, names, historical events, publication details, and attribution of ideas. Use when the user questions a claim or when a factual assertion seems uncertain. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | ## Trigger Words |
| 8 | |
| 9 | This skill activates on: `verify`, `check this`, `fact-check`, `is this correct`, `/verify`. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | ## Workflow |
| 12 | |
| 13 | 1. **Extract the claim** from the user's input or from conversation context. Identify the specific factual assertion to verify (date, name, event, publication, attribution). |
| 14 | 2. **Search authoritative sources** using WebSearch. Prioritise: |
| 15 | - Wikipedia (for dates, biographical facts, historical events) |
| 16 | - Academic databases (Google Scholar, JSTOR, PhilPapers) |
| 17 | - Publisher websites (for publication dates, editions, ISBNs) |
| 18 | - Encyclopedias (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Britannica) |
| 19 | 3. **Compare** the original claim against verified information. |
| 20 | 4. **Output the verdict** using the format below. |
| 21 | 5. **Optionally annotate the notes file.** If the user confirms, use Edit to add a `(verified)` or `(corrected: {correct info})` tag next to the relevant entry in the notes file. |
| 22 | |
| 23 | ## Output Format |
| 24 | |
| 25 | ``` |
| 26 | ## Verification |
| 27 | |
| 28 | **Claim**: {the original claim as stated in the source} |
| 29 | **Verdict**: Confirmed | Needs correction | Incorrect | Unverifiable |
| 30 | |
| 31 | | Item | Original | Verified | |
| 32 | |------|----------|----------| |
| 33 | | {specific fact} | {as claimed} | {as verified} | |
| 34 | |
| 35 | **Source**: {single-line citation in the project's declared style — see `literature/reading_notes/_template_NOTES.md` for per-style examples; the active style is `Citation style:` in `CLAUDE.md`. Append the URL after the citation if the source is web-only} |
| 36 | **Confidence**: High | Medium | Low |
| 37 | **Notes**: {any additional context, e.g., "Date varies by edition" or "Multiple conflicting sources"} |
| 38 | ``` |
| 39 | |
| 40 | ## Multiple Claims |
| 41 | |
| 42 | When verifying several claims at once, produce one verification block per claim, numbered sequentially: |
| 43 | |
| 44 | ``` |
| 45 | ### 1. {Brief claim description} |
| 46 | {verification block} |
| 47 | |
| 48 | ### 2. {Brief claim description} |
| 49 | {verification block} |
| 50 | ``` |
| 51 | |
| 52 | ## Annotation |
| 53 | |
| 54 | When the user says "annotate" or "mark in notes" after verification: |
| 55 | - Use Edit to find the relevant passage in the notes file. |
| 56 | - Append the tag inline: `(verified 2026-03-30)` or `(corrected: {correct value}, verified 2026-03-30)`. |
| 57 | - Do not alter the original text of the note -- add the tag after it. |
| 58 | |
| 59 | ## Constraints |
| 60 | |
| 61 | 1. **Never auto-correct notes** without user confirmation. Present the verdict first, then ask if the user wants to annotate. |
| 62 | 2. **Cite sources** with URLs whenever possible. Do not present unverifiable assertions as fact. |
| 63 | 3. **Acknowledge uncertainty.** If sources conflict, report all versions and mark confidence as Low. |
| 64 | 4. **No emoji** in output. |
| 65 | 5. **Scope**: This skill verifies factual claims only. For argument analysis or interpretation, defer to the user's own reading. |