Systematically evaluates claims by triangulating sources, rating evidence quality (primary/secondary/tertiary), assessing source credibility, and reaching confidence-rated conclusions to prevent confirmation bias and reliance on unreliable sources. Use when verifying claims before decisions, fact-checking statements, conducting due diligence, evaluating conflicting evidence, or when user mentions "fact-check", "verify this", "is this true", "evaluate sources", "conflicting evidence", or "due diligence".
Research Claim Map Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Define the claim precisely
- [ ] Step 2: Gather and categorize evidence
- [ ] Step 3: Rate evidence quality and source credibility
- [ ] Step 4: Identify limitations and gaps
- [ ] Step 5: Draw evidence-based conclusion
Step 1: Define the claim precisely
Restate the claim as a specific, testable assertion. Avoid vague language - use numbers, dates, and clear terms. See Common Patterns for claim reformulation examples.
Step 2: Gather and categorize evidence
Collect sources supporting and contradicting the claim. Organize into "Evidence For" and "Evidence Against". For straightforward verification → Use resources/template.md. For complex multi-source investigations → Study resources/methodology.md.
Step 3: Rate evidence quality and source credibility
Document what's unknown, what assumptions were made, and where evidence is weak or missing. See resources/methodology.md for gap analysis techniques.
Step 5: Draw evidence-based conclusion
Synthesize findings into confidence level (0-100%) and actionable recommendation (believe/skeptical/reject claim). Self-check using resources/evaluators/rubric_research_claim_map.json before delivering. Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5.