agentsclimarketplace

Verify

Skill alessiomarcone/agent-fieldbook/plugins/knowledge-pack/skills/verify

Source-backed skills that turn official Claude and Codex training into reliable daily workflows.

Install
npx -y skills add alessiomarcone/agent-fieldbook --skill verify

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

  • 19 days oldThe repository was created 19 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
  • 5 stars5 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Fact-checks and stress-tests AI answers or artifacts with claim-level evidence, uncertainty, anti-hallucination, and anti-sycophancy checks. Use for brief or detailed requests to check, verify, or review an answer before sending or publishing, and for consequential legal, financial, technical, or customer-facing decisions.

SKILL.md

2.6 KB, 480 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Verify

Apply verification in proportion to risk and make uncertainty explicit.

Evidence gate

Run this before factual analysis. Count sources supplied by the user or actually retrieved in this task. If the count is zero, do not assess, compare, correct, or quote facts from pretrained knowledge. Label every claim ⚠️ Unverified — no evidence available, name the exact authoritative retrieval step, report that a verdict is not yet possible, and stop.

References

  • Read references/ai-literacy.md for knowledge gaps, sycophancy, and hallucination patterns.
  • Read references/regole-distillate.md for cross-cutting verification rules.

Procedure

  1. After passing the evidence gate, classify risk. Use a quick check for reversible internal work and a source-backed check for consequential work.
  2. Extract substantive claims, especially names, dates, figures, quotes, citations, recent changes, and niche facts.
  3. Verify each claim against a source that actually supports it. A claim cannot receive ✅ or ❌ without a supplied or retrieved citation. Prefer current primary sources for product, legal, medical, financial, and technical claims.
  4. Check for sycophancy: neutralize the user's framing, seek counterevidence, and distinguish agreement from support.
  5. Inspect the process: undeclared assumptions, circular reasoning, missing cases, inconsistent calculations, or skipped acceptance criteria.
  6. Perform an independent final pass and state what would make the verdict wrong.

Claim labels

  • ✅ Verified — directly supported by cited evidence.
  • ⚠️ Plausible, not verified — include the exact verification step.
  • ❌ Contradicted or fabricated — directly contradicted by cited evidence; provide a supported correction.

Close with an overall verdict and What would make this output wrong?

Boundaries

  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
  • If retrieval tools or supplied sources are unavailable, every factual claim remains ⚠️. Do not provide remembered figures, dates, product history, or corrections; give only the exact authoritative source or retrieval step needed.
  • If most claims remain unverified, recommend retrieval from authoritative sources.
  • Never treat the model's confidence as evidence.
  • Answer in the user's language.

What ships with it: 3 files

10.0 KB alongside SKILL.md

agents/

references/

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most quality gates skills give in 480 tokens

Counted across 1,195 of the 2,094 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • Read the output and check the exit codein 54 of 1195, across 14 files
  • Verify requirements using a line-by-line checklistin 53 of 1195, across 12 files
  • Identify the verification command proving the claimin 51 of 1195, across 12 files
  • Run the full verification commandin 50 of 1195, across 11 files
  • Verify output confirms the claimin 49 of 1195, across 12 files
  • Check version control diff after agent delegationin 46 of 1195, across 6 files
  • State claim with evidencein 44 of 1195, across 4 files
  • Run the test suitein 33 of 1195, across 26 files
  • Keep state in memory by defaultin 27 of 1195, across 6 files
  • Make prototype runnable with one commandin 26 of 1195, across 5 files
  • Produce a verification reportin 25 of 1195, across 14 files
  • Detect the package manager from lockfilesin 24 of 1195, across 5 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • apply verification in proportion to risk
  • count available sources before factual analysis
  • do not assess facts without sources
  • classify risk before proceeding
  • verify each substantive claim against a supporting source
  • neutralize user framing and seek counterevidence

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,984. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.