version: "1.0.0" name: fact-checking description: Review and validate claims using counter-hypothesis testing. Use when verifying technical content, checking references, validating API endpoints, or performing quality assurance on deliverables. license: MIT compatibility: Requires access to external references and APIs metadata: author: squad version: "1.0.0" domain: quality, verification confidence: low last_validated: "2026-03-01"

Skill: Fact Checking

Context

Codifies the challenger agent review output format and methodology so any agent performing fact-checking or review produces consistent, structured output.

Pattern

Review Methodology

For every claim or deliverable under review:

1. Ask: "What evidence supports this? What would disprove it?"
2. Generate counter-hypotheses and test them against available data
3. Verify URLs, package names, API endpoints, and external references actually exist
4. Flag confidence levels: ✅ Verified, ⚠️ Unverified, ❌ Contradicted

Review Output Format

When reviewing another agent's work, use this template:

### Fact Check — {deliverable name}
**Claims verified:** {count}
**Issues found:** {count}
 
| # | Claim | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|---|-------|--------|---------------|
| 1 | {claim} | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {supporting or contradicting evidence} |
 
**Counter-hypotheses tested:**
- {alternative explanation + result}
 
**Verdict:** {PASS / PASS WITH NOTES / NEEDS REVISION}

Confidence Levels

• ✅ Verified — evidence confirms the claim
• ⚠️ Unverified — cannot confirm or deny; suggest verification method
• ❌ Contradicted — evidence disproves the claim

Ceremony Integration

Auto-trigger this skill before any architecture decision, or when an agent claim contains superlatives or percentage thresholds (e.g., "saves 75%", "always", "never"). The coordinator spawns the challenger agent with:

Challenger — fact-check {agent}'s claim: "{claim}"
Cite evidence for every verdict. Max 3 investigation cycles.