MCPInstall

factchk

Verify reality-grounded claims against external sources in both directions before they ship — could the 'absurd' be real, could the 'obvious' be false or long-established? Use whenever an artifact, or the sentence you are about to write, asserts something as plausible, realistic, absurd, novel, or impossible from intuition rather than a checked source; before relying on a factual claim in prose, a design rationale, a research claim, or a plan. Fires on metacognitive doubt — when you can't actually know, verify instead of trusting the feeling. Scans read-only, then fixes the clear errors or flags the judgment calls; leaves deliberate fiction alone.

Installs
1.3K
Last 24h
—
Trending rank
—
Security
Not audited

Install

Works with every agent the skills CLI supports.

npx skills add https://github.com/lilmgenius/paperthin --skill factchk
  1. 01

    Install

    Run the command in your project. The CLI asks which agents to install for.

  2. 02

    Describe the task

    Ask your agent for something this skill covers. It loads factchk automatically when relevant.

  3. 03

    Review the result

    The agent follows the SKILL.md steps, scripts and references bundled with the skill.

SKILL.md

The instructions your agent reads when the skill is triggered.

Check what's asserted as real against reality — in both directions — before it ships.

Goal

The author's "plausible / absurd / novel" is the least reliable line in any artifact. Human priors fail both ways — they exclude the real (desert frogs exist) and normalize the impossible (weightless crates). factchk scans claims presented as reality-grounded, verifies each against external sources in both directions, and fixes or flags. Its scope is a claim about the world — whether what's asserted as real is real — not the soundness of a validation or the survival of a whole plan.

Workflow

  1. Scan for reality-grounded assertions — anything leaning on "this is plausible / realistic / absurd / novel / impossible because X," including the claim you are about to write, not only those already on the page.
  2. Verify each against external sources (web search, open references) in both directions: could the "absurd" be real? could the "obvious" or "novel" be false or long-established? If you cannot reach a source, flag — never assert from intuition.
  3. Fix or flag: a mechanically-clear error (a wrong date, a misattributed source, a falsified number) → correct it with a cited source; a judgment call (a contested or interpretive claim) → surface it, don't silently rewrite.
  4. Report each claim, its verdict, the source, and — for a failed claim — which direction it failed.

Rules

  • Target claims asserted as reality-grounded, never deliberate fiction ("in our world, boxes float" is a declared choice). When it is unclear whether a claim is an in-world choice or a real-world assertion, flag, don't fix — the hardest call in the skill.
  • Flagging only the unrealistic catches half the errors.
  • The trigger is metacognition, not knowledge: you can't know every domain, so the moment you are about to assert a checkable fact from a feeling, verify it instead of trusting the feeling.
  • A pass that finds nothing changes nothing.

Verification

Before finishing: every verdict traces to a citable external source, not a reworded prior intuition — and the report reads as fixes-vs-flags, not restated intuitions.

FAQ

What does the factchk skill do?

Verify reality-grounded claims against external sources in both directions before they ship — could the 'absurd' be real, could the 'obvious' be false or long-established? Use whenever an artifact, or the sentence you are about to write, asserts something as plausible, realistic, absurd, novel, or impossible from intuition rather than a checked source; before relying on a factual claim in prose, a design rationale, a research claim, or a plan. Fires on metacognitive doubt — when you can't actually know, verify instead of trusting the feeling. Scans read-only, then fixes the clear errors or flags the judgment calls; leaves deliberate fiction alone.

How do I install factchk?

Run npx skills add https://github.com/lilmgenius/paperthin --skill factchk in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/factchk/ (personal) or .claude/skills/factchk/ (project).

Which AI agents can use factchk?

Any agent that supports the open Agent Skills format (a folder with a SKILL.md file), including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Cline, OpenCode and more.

Is factchk safe to install?

No partner security audit is available yet. Skills can run commands and scripts, so read the SKILL.md and any bundled files before installing.

Who maintains factchk?

It is published by lilmgenius in lilmgenius/paperthin. It has 1,329 recorded installs.

More from lilmgenius/paperthin

View all →

dedash

lilmgenius/paperthin

Remove em-dashes and the dashes standing in for them from a user-owned scope, reading each occurrence in context and choosing the punctuation or wording that fits.

1.5K installs

ssotize

lilmgenius/paperthin

Audit and consolidate a fact that's scattered across places into one canonical source, after approval, and replace the rest with references. Use when asked to find duplication, check consistency, locate the source of truth, deduplicate, consolidate, unify, or establish SSOT across artifacts or platforms. Starts read-only, reports the map and plan, then mutates only after explicit approval.

Backend & APIs1.3K installs

shower

lilmgenius/paperthin

Cold-read the artifact you're focused on from a fresh, zero-context sub-session to confirm it stands on its own — a shower-thought reset for accumulated session bias. Use when a long session has worn away your fresh eyes and you can no longer tell whether the artifact in focus is clear to someone with no prior context; before a handoff, publish, or merge; or when you want a clean-room comprehension smoke test. Spawns a separate context-free reviewer; it diagnoses, it does not fix.

Testing & QA1.3K installs

hate

lilmgenius/paperthin

Attack a plan, design, or argument like you want it to fail before you commit real effort — return the single load-bearing objection and the cheapest experiment that would prove it matters, not a checklist. User-invoked on purpose: a hate-it reflex always in the agent's reach would bias it toward demolition. Weighs many failure axes but owns the synthesis to one root.

re0

lilmgenius/paperthin

Refresh an existing artifact into the current best v0. Use when the user asks to clean up, sync up, dedupe, de-noise, smooth, rewrite, or update an artifact after iteration; when nearby artifacts may have drifted; or when changes in one place should be reflected across related artifacts while keeping the result minimal.

1.3K installs

mandela

lilmgenius/paperthin

Audit any eval, metric, experiment, or benchmark for leakage — does external ground-truth enter independently, or are the model, scorer, and designer just confirming a result no outside truth ever produced? Use before trusting any 'how we'll know it worked' — an A/B, a holdout, a score, a validation — and whenever a result feels too clean or self-confirming. Walks an 8-pattern leakage taxonomy and returns only the patterns that fire, each with an independence fix. Read-only.

Frontend & Design1.3K installs

Popular code quality & workflow skills

View category →

grill-me

mattpocock/skills

A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design.

Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.

handoff

mattpocock/skills

Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.

domain-modeling

mattpocock/skills

Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when discussing codebase terminology, writing or editing a GLOSSARY.md, or recording or editing an ADR.

codebase-design

mattpocock/skills

Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.

diagnosing-bugs

mattpocock/skills

Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says "diagnose"/"debug this", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.