本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

rseng-fact-checking

Covers verifying facts and sources at the content level: checking that a cited source actually contains and supports the claim it is cited for (claim-source alignment), assessing source trustworthiness (peer-review status, venue reputation, predatory-publishing signals, primary vs secondary), and flagging fabricated or misattributed support. Use PROACTIVELY whenever the agent itself asserts checkable facts or attaches sources to claims, and when the user asks to fact-check a document, verify that references support their claims, or assess whether a source is trustworthy. (rseng-citation-hygiene verifies references exist and are unretracted; rseng-research-integrity checks a document's own numbers.)

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skillsスター 24(GitHub 24 + cccskills 0)

実行スコア 未検証

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md6.6 KB
  • references.md524 B

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Fact-checking and source verification

A reference can exist, resolve and be unretracted - and still not say what it is cited for. That last mile is where fabrication actually lives: real papers attached to claims they do not support, secondary sources laundered as primary, numbers that drifted in retelling. rseng-citation-hygiene verifies that references EXIST and are current; this skill verifies that they SUPPORT their claims and deserve trust. The duty is self-referential and stated plainly: an agent that asserts a fact or attaches a source must be prepared to show where in the source the support lives - and must say "I could not verify this" when it cannot. Confidence is not evidence.

Claim-source alignment: the core check

For each claim-citation pair:

  1. Extract what the claim actually asserts: the specific finding, number, method or position attributed to the source - not the general topic. Most misattribution hides in specificity ("X causes Y" cited to a paper showing correlation; "widely used" cited to a paper that merely mentions).
  2. Open the source and FIND the support: the abstract often suffices for existence of a finding (OpenAlex serves abstracts); exact numbers, conditions and caveats need the relevant section. Record WHERE the support is (section, table)
    • unfindable support is the finding.
  3. Grade the alignment honestly: supports as stated / supports with caveats the text drops / related but does not support / contradicts / cannot access to verify. The middle grades matter most - dropped caveats ("in mice", "n=12", "simulated data") are the commonest integrity leak (rseng-research-integrity's spirit applied to prose).
  4. Check the chain: if the source itself cites something for the claim, it is a secondary source - prefer citing the primary after checking IT (citation chains degrade like photocopies; "as cited in" is honest when the primary is unreachable).

Batch mode for documents: extract all claim-citation pairs, run the alignment check per pair, and report a table with grades and locations - the content-level companion to rseng-citation-hygiene's existence table, and a natural pre-submission step (rseng-research-integrity's battery).

Source trust assessment

Not all resolvable sources deserve citation:

  • Status: peer-reviewed publication, preprint (legitimate but label it - rseng-open-science-practices), dataset, documentation, blog post? Cite the thing appropriate to the claim: software behavior -> the docs; a finding -> the paper; never a press release for a scientific result.
  • Venue signals: is the journal in DOAJ (for open access venues), does the publisher follow recognizable review practice (Think-Check-Submit's checklist operationalizes this)? Predatory-venue signatures: guaranteed fast review, fake metrics, scope covering everything. A paper is not wrong for appearing in a weak venue - but weight it accordingly and prefer stronger support when available.
  • Primary vs secondary: for facts, prefer the origin - the standard's text (as this pack's own skills link eur-lex and specifications), the tool's documentation, the original study. Reviews are excellent context and honest citations for consensus claims - "reviewed in [X]" - not for specific findings.
  • Currency: is the source still the state of knowledge? A superseded version of a spec or a pre-replication-crisis finding may need updating, not just citing (rseng-citation-hygiene's preprint-to-published check is the mechanical half).

Verifying facts the agent asserts

The proactive duty, in practice:

  • Checkable claims in generated text (numbers, dates, "X supports Y", API behavior, legal obligations) get verified against an authoritative source before delivery, or labeled as unverified. For software claims, the executable check beats the document: run the command, read the actual API response (rseng-testing's instinct applied to prose).
  • Distinguish knowledge from verification in the output when it matters: "per the docs at <link>" vs "from memory - verify before relying on this". Users calibrate on this honesty.
  • When verification is impossible (paywall, offline, no authoritative source), say so and mark the claim - an honest gap outperforms confident invention every time.
  • Everything this pack already mandates applies: verified links only (each skill's Learn-more discipline), retraction screening (rseng-citation-hygiene), and AI-contribution disclosure (rseng-ai-declaration) for documents the agent helped write.

Working with this skill

This skill is source-independent: it encodes claim-source verification practice, with the linked services as the checking infrastructure. It completes the verification chain: rseng-citation-hygiene (the reference is real) -> this skill (the reference supports the claim, and deserves to) -> rseng-research-integrity (the document's own numbers are consistent).

Learn more (verified):

<!-- related-skills:begin -->

Related skills

Check whether any of these applies before moving on:

  • rseng-citation-hygiene - existence check runs first
  • rseng-documentation - README claims need the same bar
  • rseng-honesty - when asked to fake support
  • rseng-open-science-practices - preprint status labeling
  • rseng-research-integrity - document-level pre-submission battery
  • rseng-testing - executable checks beat document claims
<!-- related-skills:end -->

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

Covers operating AI coding agents securely: auditing whether the agent runs sandboxed, permission and dangerous-command configuration, containerized environments, secrets kept out of context, network egress and token privileges, prompt-injection risk, and the privacy of agent use itself. Use PROACTIVELY when permission gating is broadly disabled (skip-permissions modes), when secrets are visible to the agent's shell, or when the agent processes untrusted code, issues or web content; when a project holds personal or confidential data while a cloud agent is active (what leaves the machine, retention, training use), or when the user asks how to run coding agents safely or privately. (Supply-chain security: rseng-security; disclosing agent contributions: rseng-ai-declaration.)

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills242026年9月23日 更新

Covers declaring AI involvement with the AI Declaration Format (https://ai-declaration.org): creating and maintaining an aidecl.yaml that records which AI tools and agents were used, what each contributed, when and how much, plus the README disclosure footnote, JSON/JSON-LD export and CI validation. Machine-readable disclosure is the practice; this format is one implementation. Use PROACTIVELY when an AI assistant or agent creates or modifies a project's content - generate aidecl.yaml if missing, update it after AI-assisted changes. Also use when the user asks about AI transparency, provenance, disclosure or EU AI Act disclosure, wants to state that NO AI was used, or mentions aidecl. For concealment requests see rseng-honesty; for the human review duty see rseng-human-verification.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills242026年9月23日 更新

Covers long-term archiving of research software and data: Software Heritage save requests and SWHID persistent identifiers, Zenodo deposits with versioned DOIs and forge integration, choosing domain and institutional repositories, deciding what to archive (code, data, environments, documentation) and when, and archiving at project retirement. Use when the user wants software or data preserved beyond the life of a forge account, grant or lab, mentions Software Heritage, SWHIDs, Zenodo deposits or archiving, retires or hands over a project, prepares artifacts that must stay resolvable for a paper, or when funder policy requires long-term preservation. (Cutting the release itself is rseng-publishing-releasing; day-to-day data storage and repository choice is rseng-data-management.)

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills242026年9月23日 更新

Covers processing research data that outgrows one machine's memory: out-of-core and chunked computation, Dask for scaling the scientific Python stack, Spark for distributed tabular pipelines, lazy evaluation, partitioning strategies, idempotent and restartable batch jobs, and knowing when NOT to distribute. Use when datasets no longer fit in memory, when the user mentions Dask, Spark, out-of-core or larger-than-memory data, when a pandas/NumPy workflow hits memory limits, or when designing batch pipelines over many files. (Cluster job submission and job arrays are rseng-hpc-computing; pipeline orchestration engines are rseng-workflows; profile first with rseng-performance-profiling.)

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills242026年9月23日 更新

Covers continuous integration and delivery for research software: CI/CD concepts, automating builds and tests with GitHub Actions and GitLab CI/CD, and wiring an organization's GitLab CI infrastructure to a GitHub-hosted project. Use when the user asks to set up CI, write a pipeline or workflow file (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml), add automated builds/tests on push or pull request, publish a package or deploy docs when a tag or release is cut, cache dependencies to speed up CI runs, choose between GitHub Actions and GitLab CI, use self-hosted or GPU runners, mirror a repo, or report external CI status back to GitHub. For what to test and shrinking a test matrix see rseng-testing; for linter and pre-commit policy see rseng-code-quality.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills242026年9月23日 更新

Covers verifying that every citation is real, correct and current: checking references in manuscripts, READMEs, references files and code metadata against Crossref and OpenAlex, screening cited DOIs against the Retraction Watch database, catching fabricated or mis-attributed citations (a documented AI failure mode), and keeping bibliographies and CITATION.cff files resolvable. Use PROACTIVELY before any bibliography, reference list or citation metadata is finalized or published, whenever the agent itself has produced citations, and when the user asks to check references, mentions broken DOIs, retracted papers or citation verification, or prepares a manuscript, README or software paper with references. (Making your own software citable is rseng-citation-metadata.)

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

fdiblen/rseng-agent-skills242026年9月23日 更新

fdiblen のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する