Fact check

Skill damionrashford/RivalSearch-Plugin/skills/fact-check

Claude Code Plugin with AI research agent skills powered by MCP. 10 MCP tools, 5 agent skills, 6 AI research agents via RivalSearchMCP. Zero API keys.

Install

npx -y skills add damionrashford/RivalSearch-Plugin --skill fact-check

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

One thing to look at

1 stars1 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

Verify claims, statements, or assertions by cross-referencing web, news, academic, and social sources. Produces a confidence-scored verdict with full evidence chain. Use when verifying claims, checking facts, or validating statements.

SKILL.md

3.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Fact Check

Verify the following claim: $ARGUMENTS

Follow these steps precisely using RivalSearchMCP tools. Report progress after each step.

Step 1: Claim Decomposition

Parse the claim into individually verifiable components. List each sub-claim and what evidence would confirm or refute it.

Step 2: Primary Source Search

Use web_search to find the origin of the claim:

query: "$ARGUMENTS"
num_results: 15
extract_content: true

Identify where this claim first appeared. Use content_operations to retrieve the original source:

operation: "retrieve", url: <source_url>, extraction_method: "markdown"

Step 3: Corroboration Search

Search for independent confirmation:

web_search with query: "$ARGUMENTS", num_results: 10
web_search with alternative phrasing of the claim, num_results: 10
news_aggregation with query: "$ARGUMENTS", max_results: 10, time_range: "month"

Count how many independent sources confirm the claim.

Step 4: Counter-Evidence Search

Actively search for contradicting evidence:

web_search with query: "$ARGUMENTS false OR debunked OR incorrect OR misleading", num_results: 10
social_search with query: "$ARGUMENTS", platforms: ["reddit", "hackernews"], max_results_per_platform: 10

Look for rebuttals, corrections, retractions, or alternative explanations.

Step 5: Academic Verification

If the claim involves data, statistics, or technical facts:

scientific_research with operation: "academic_search", query: "$ARGUMENTS", max_results: 5, sources: ["semantic_scholar", "arxiv"]

Check if peer-reviewed research supports or contradicts the claim.

Step 6: Deep Source Analysis

For the 2-3 most authoritative sources (for and against), use content_operations:

operation: "retrieve", url: <source_url>, extraction_method: "markdown"
operation: "analyze", content: <retrieved>, analysis_type: "general", extract_key_points: true

Read and assess the quality of each source.

Step 7: Compile Verdict

Claim Under Review — Quote the exact claim
Verdict — One of: Verified / Likely True / Unverified / Disputed / Likely False / False
Confidence Score — High / Medium-High / Medium / Medium-Low / Low
Evidence For — Sources supporting the claim with inline citations
Evidence Against — Sources contradicting the claim with inline citations
Primary Source Analysis — What the original source actually says
Context & Nuance — Important context that affects interpretation
Component Verdicts — If multiple sub-claims, verdict on each
Sources — Complete list of all URLs consulted

Use clean markdown. Every factual statement must cite its source with Source Name format.