| name | review-technical-claims |
| description | Audit a document for unverified technical claims, verify attributions against real sources, fix errors, and provide honest critical review. |
| user-invocable | true |
| argument-hint | [path to document] |
Review Technical Claims
Audit a document for unverified technical claims, verify attributions against real sources, fix errors, and provide honest critical review.
Context
Read the target document. Identify all sections that make claims about external systems, competitors, or industry patterns.
Task Workflow
Phase 1: Claim Inventory
- Read the entire target document
- Extract every factual claim about external systems into a checklist:
- "Used by" attributions
- Technical architecture claims
- Cost/pricing claims
- Performance characteristics
- Customer quotes (verify attribution, not content)
- For each claim, note whether a source is cited. Flag unsourced claims.
Phase 2: Source Verification (SIFT Method)
Apply the SIFT method — Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, Trace claims to the original context.
Source Credibility Hierarchy:
- Official documentation, vendor whitepapers, changelogs
- Peer-reviewed research, conference proceedings
- Established engineering blogs (company tech blogs, well-known authors)
- Community wikis, tutorials, Stack Overflow answers
- Unattributed blog posts, social media, marketing copy
Process:
- For claims WITH a source URL: verify it resolves and contains supporting content
- Trace to primary source if secondary
- For claims WITHOUT a source: find authoritative sources
- Verify in parallel where possible
Phase 3: Correction
- Fix incorrect attributions
- Replace broken source URLs with working alternatives
- Upgrade weak sources to higher-tier ones
- Add Sources subsections where missing
- Remove or caveat unverifiable claims
- When sources contradict, note the conflict and cite all sides
Phase 4: Critical Review
- After corrections, evaluate:
- Fairness (same standard of evidence for own system vs. competitors?)
- Scope honesty (apples-to-apples comparisons?)
- Source quality
- Staleness (claims older than 18 months?)
- Bias signals
- Internal consistency
- Present findings by severity: Must fix, Should fix, Broken links, Consider
Expected Outcome
- Every attribution has a cited, verified source
- Broken URLs are replaced
- Weak sources upgraded where possible
- Unverifiable claims flagged or removed
- Structured critical review provided
