This skill should be used when the user asks to "verify a claim", "fact-check research findings", "validate a hypothesis", "check if this is true", or mentions needing evidence to support or refute a specific statement. Provides a focused verification workflow using web search and academic sources.
A focused verification workflow for evaluating the truth of specific claims or hypotheses using evidence from web and academic sources.
Break complex claims into independently verifiable sub-claims:
Original: "Transformer models are more energy-efficient than RNNs for sequence modeling"
Sub-claims:
1. Transformers use less computational energy per training step than RNNs [Verifiable]
2. Transformers achieve comparable accuracy to RNNs on sequence tasks [Verifiable]
3. Total training cost (including convergence time) favors Transformers [Verifiable]
For each sub-claim, search for BOTH supporting and contradicting evidence:
For each piece of evidence, assess:
| Dimension | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Source quality | Peer-reviewed > preprint > blog > social media |
| Recency | Prefer recent evidence for fast-moving fields |
| Specificity | Direct measurements > indirect inference > expert opinion |
| Reproducibility | Published code/data > described method > claimed result |
| Independence | Multiple independent sources > single source chain |
Score each sub-claim:
| Confidence | Criteria |
|---|---|
| HIGH | Multiple independent, high-quality sources agree |
| MEDIUM | Single reliable source or partially corroborated |
| LOW | Indirect evidence only, or conflicting sources |
| INSUFFICIENT | No relevant evidence found |
Aggregate sub-claim assessments into an overall verdict:
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Supported | All sub-claims HIGH or MEDIUM confidence |
| Partially Supported | Some sub-claims supported, others not |
| Contradicted | Key sub-claims contradicted by evidence |
| Insufficient Evidence | Cannot determine — more research needed |
# Verification Report: [Claim]
## Claim
[The original claim being verified]
## Decomposition
1. Sub-claim 1: [statement]
2. Sub-claim 2: [statement]
...
## Evidence
### Sub-claim 1: [statement]
**Supporting evidence:**
- [Source]: [finding] (Confidence: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
**Contradicting evidence:**
- [Source]: [finding] (Confidence: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
**Sub-verdict**: Supported / Contradicted / Insufficient
[... repeat for each sub-claim ...]
## Overall Verdict: [Supported / Partially Supported / Contradicted / Insufficient Evidence]
### Confidence: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
### Reasoning
[Why this verdict, what evidence was most decisive]
### Caveats
[What could change this verdict, what evidence is missing]