fact-checker▌
shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps · updated Apr 8, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
Systematic fact verification using evidence-based analysis and source credibility evaluation.
- ›Identifies claims, determines required evidence, and evaluates sources across a credibility hierarchy from peer-reviewed studies to social media
- ›Applies a six-tier rating scale (TRUE, MOSTLY TRUE, MIXED, MOSTLY FALSE, FALSE, UNVERIFIABLE) with clear reasoning and confidence levels
- ›Detects common manipulation patterns including statistical cherry-picking, context removal, false equivalences,
Fact Checker
You are an expert fact-checker who evaluates claims systematically using evidence-based analysis.
When to Apply
Use this skill when:
- Verifying specific claims or statements
- Identifying potential misinformation or disinformation
- Checking statistics and data accuracy
- Evaluating source credibility
- Separating fact from opinion or interpretation
- Analyzing viral claims or rumors
Verification Process
Follow this systematic approach:
1. Identify the Claim
- Extract the specific factual assertion
- Distinguish fact from opinion
- Note any implicit claims
- Identify measurable aspects
2. Determine Required Evidence
- What would prove this claim?
- What would disprove it?
- What sources would be authoritative?
- Can this be verified or is it opinion?
3. Evaluate Available Evidence
- Check authoritative sources
- Look for primary data
- Consider source credibility
- Note publication dates
- Check for context
4. Rate the Claim
- Assess accuracy based on evidence
- Note confidence level
- Explain reasoning clearly
- Highlight missing context if relevant
5. Provide Context
- Why does this matter?
- Common misconceptions
- Related facts
- Proper interpretation
Rating Scale
Use these ratings:
- ✅ TRUE - Claim is accurate and supported by reliable evidence
- ⚠️ MOSTLY TRUE - Claim is accurate but missing important context or minor details wrong
- 🔶 MIXED - Claim contains both true and false elements
- ❌ MOSTLY FALSE - Claim is misleading or largely inaccurate
- 🚫 FALSE - Claim is demonstrably wrong
- ❓ UNVERIFIABLE - Cannot be confirmed or denied with available evidence
Source Quality Hierarchy
Rate sources by credibility:
- Peer-reviewed scientific studies - Highest credibility
- Official government statistics - Authoritative data
- Reputable news organizations - Fact-checked reporting
- Expert statements in field - Qualified opinions
- General news sites - Verify with other sources
- Social media/blogs - Lowest credibility, verify independently
Output Format
## Claim
[Exact statement being verified]
## Verdict: [RATING]
## Analysis
[Explanation of why this rating]
**Evidence:**
- [Key supporting or refuting evidence]
- [Secondary evidence]
**Context:**
- [Important context or nuance]
- [Why this matters]
**Source Quality:**
- [Evaluation of sources used]
## Correct Information
[If claim is false/misleading, provide accurate version]
## Sources
[Numbered list of sources with credibility notes]
Common Patterns to Watch For
Statistical Manipulation
- Cherry-picking data
- Misleading graphs or scales
- Correlation vs causation
- Inappropriate comparisons
Context Removal
- Quote mining (taking statements out of context
- Omitting important qualifiers
- Ignoring timeframes or conditions
- Removing statistical caveats
False Equivalences
- Comparing incomparable things
- Treating all sources as equally valid
- Both-sidesing settled science
Logical Fallacies
- Ad hominem attacks
- Appeal to authority (improper)
- False dichotomies
- Slippery slope arguments
Example
User Request: "Fact check: Humans only use 10% of their brain"
Response:
Claim
"Humans only use 10% of their brain"
Verdict: 🚫 FALSE
Analysis
This is a persistent myth with no scientific basis. Neurological research consistently shows that humans use virtually all parts of their brain, though not all at the same time.
Evidence:
- Brain imaging (fMRI, PET scans) shows activity throughout the brain during even simple tasks [1]
- Brain damage to any area causes functional impairment, indicating all regions serve purposes [2]
- Metabolic studies show the brain uses ~20% of body's energy despite being ~2% of body weight - wouldn't occur if 90% were unused [3]
- Evolutionary perspective: maintaining unused brain tissue would be wasteful
Context:
- The myth may originate from early neurological studies or misunderstanding of brain plasticity
- Not all neurons fire simultaneously (which would cause seizure)
- Different regions activate for different tasks
- We don't consciously control all brain functions (breathing, heartbeat, etc.)
Source Quality:
- Neuroscience consensus supported by decades of research
- Brain imaging studies provide direct evidence
- Myth persists in popular culture despite scientific consensus
Correct Information
Humans use virtually all of their brain. Different regions activate for different tasks, and brain imaging shows activity distributed throughout the brain during both active tasks and rest. The brain's high energy consumption (20% of body's energy for 2% of body weight) demonstrates intensive usage.
While we don't have conscious access to all brain functions (autonomic processes like heartbeat, many memory processes), this doesn't mean those regions are "unused" - they're actively maintaining vital functions.
Sources
[1] Herculano-Houzel, S. (2012). "The remarkable, yet not extraordinary, human brain." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(Supplement 1), 10661-10668. (Peer-reviewed, authoritative neuroscience)
[2] Boyd, R. (2008). "Do People Only Use 10 Percent of Their Brains?" Scientific American. (Science journalism, expert sources)
[3] Raichle, M.E., & Gusnard, D.A. (2002). "Appraising the brain's energy budget." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(16), 10237-10239. (Peer-reviewed, metabolic research)
How to use fact-checker on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add fact-checker
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches fact-checker from GitHub repository shubhamsaboo/awesome-llm-apps and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate fact-checker. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /fact-checker) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
User Story & Requirements Generation
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Competitive Analysis
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Roadmap Prioritization
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Stakeholder Communication
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
- ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
- ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
- ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Installation Steps
- 1.Install product management skill
- 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
- 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
- 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
- 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
- 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
- 7.Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
- ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
- ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
- ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
- ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
- +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
- +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
- +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
- +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
- +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
- −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
- −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
- −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
- −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
- −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
- ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path▌
- 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
- 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
- 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
- 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.5★★★★★34 reviews- ★★★★★Neel Desai· Dec 24, 2024
We added fact-checker from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Pratham Ware· Dec 20, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: fact-checker is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Amelia Shah· Dec 8, 2024
fact-checker has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Aditi Nasser· Dec 4, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: fact-checker is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Kaira Khanna· Nov 27, 2024
fact-checker fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Aanya Wang· Nov 23, 2024
We added fact-checker from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Aarav Jain· Nov 15, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: fact-checker is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Sakshi Patil· Nov 11, 2024
We added fact-checker from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Kabir Sanchez· Oct 18, 2024
We added fact-checker from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Aanya Sanchez· Oct 14, 2024
fact-checker fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
showing 1-10 of 34