Fact checker

Skill radustefandumitru/overdrive/skills/fact-checker

Improve your AI coding agents easily.

Install

npx -y skills add radustefandumitru/overdrive --skill fact-checker

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

no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
13 stars13 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

Check factual claims in writing against credible sources, rate support levels, and suggest safer wording or better citations. Use for blog posts, landing pages, reports, social posts, research summaries, investor materials, SEO content, or any output with claims, stats, studies, or factual assertions.

SKILL.md

2.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Fact Checker

Use this skill to separate claims that are supported, weakly supported, misleading, outdated, or unverifiable.

This is an original Overdrive skill inspired by public discussion of claim-checking skills. Do not copy unavailable or non-resolving upstream skill text.

Claim Categories

Extract and review:

numerical claims and statistics
causal claims
comparative claims
quotes and attributions
legal, medical, financial, or safety claims
product claims and benchmarks
historical/current-event claims
source-dependent claims such as "studies show" or "experts say"

Ignore purely subjective opinions unless they are presented as fact.

Source Hierarchy

Prefer sources in this order:

Primary sources, official docs, standards, public filings, datasets, papers, or legal/regulatory text.
Reputable secondary sources that cite primary evidence.
Established news/research organizations with visible methodology.
Company blogs or vendor docs for claims about their own products.
Social posts, forums, marketing pages, and unverified blogs only as weak context.

For current, legal, medical, financial, political, market, software-version, or high-stakes claims, use current web/official sources instead of memory.

Ratings

Use these ratings:

TRUE: directly supported by strong sources.
MOSTLY TRUE: supported with minor caveats or wording issues.
MIXED: partly supported but missing context or overgeneralized.
UNSUPPORTED: plausible but not verified by adequate sources.
FALSE: contradicted by reliable sources.
UNVERIFIABLE: cannot be checked from available evidence.

Output Contract

Return a table when practical:

Claim	Rating	Evidence	Safer wording / action

Then provide:

highest-risk claims
missing citations
recommended rewrites
source list
remaining uncertainty

Rewrite Rules

Preserve the user's intended meaning where possible.
Replace overconfident claims with scoped, sourced wording.
Remove unsupported numbers instead of inventing citations.
Use date-specific wording for time-sensitive facts.
Do not bury high-risk uncertainty in footnotes.

Pairings

Pair with last30days for recent events.
Pair with reddit-research when checking community sentiment, but do not treat Reddit as primary evidence.
Pair with content-research-writer for sourced long-form content.
Pair with humanizer only after factual corrections are complete.