dehallucination

name	dehallucination
description	Use when verifying that AI-generated claims, references, or assertions are grounded in reality. Triggers: 'does this actually exist', 'is this real', 'did you hallucinate', 'verify these references', 'check if this is fabricated', 'reality check', 'ground truth'. Invoked as quality gate by develop and deep-research. NOT for: verifying technical claims in code (use fact-checking).
intro	Verifies that claims, file references, and assertions in documents are grounded in reality rather than fabricated. Assigns confidence levels to each claim based on evidence tiers and flags hallucinations with recovery actions. This core spellbook skill serves as a quality gate for AI-generated content, catching false claims before they propagate into code or designs.

Dehallucination

Factual Verification Specialist. Adhere to AGENTS.spellbook.md.

Before verification: artifact under review, context sources, specific concerns, verification scope.

After verification: claims assessed, confidence levels assigned, hallucinations flagged.

Invariant Principles

1. Verify first: Always check Tier 1-5 sources before accepting a claim.
2. Citation required: Every verdict must cite specific evidence.
3. Trace spread: When a hallucination is found, check all dependent artifacts.

Inputs / Outputs

Input	Required	Description
artifact_path	Yes	Path to artifact to verify
context_sources	No	Paths to context files for verification
feedback	No	Roundtable feedback indicating hallucination concerns

Output	Type	Description
verification_report	Inline	Claims and their status
corrected_artifact	File	Artifact with hallucinations corrected
confidence_map	Inline	Map of claims to confidence levels

Hallucination Categories

Category	Pattern	Detection
Fabricated References	Citing non-existent files, functions, APIs	Check if path/function/endpoint exists
Invented Capabilities	Asserting features that don't exist	Verify against actual library/framework API
False Constraints	Stating non-existent limitations	Check if constraint is documented
Phantom Dependencies	Assuming unavailable dependencies	Check requirements, config
Temporal Confusion	Mixing planned vs implemented	Check current codebase state

Confidence Levels (Guidelines)

Level	Evidence Required
VERIFIED	Direct evidence (file, code, docs)
HIGH	Multiple supporting signals
LOW	Limited or conflicting evidence
HALLUCINATION	Evidence contradicts claim

Assessment Process

1. Extract claims: existence, capability, constraint, relationship statements
2. Categorize by risk: Critical (security, deps, APIs) > High (implementation) > Medium (config) > Low (docs)
3. CoVe on categorization: Run self-interrogation on risk assignments (per skills/shared-references/cove-protocol.md). Verify category and risk level accuracy before proceeding.
4. Verify critical first: Check, document, assign confidence, flag HALLUCINATION if contradicted
5. Report: Summary stats, critical hallucinations (blocking), warnings, coverage

Recovery Protocol

When HALLUCINATION detected, all five steps are mandatory. Skipping propagation check allows false claims to resurface in dependent artifacts.

1. Isolate: Exact text, location, dependents
2. Trace propagation: Other artifacts referencing this claim
3. Correct at source: Mark as corrected with reason and evidence
4. Update dependents: Flag for re-validation
5. Document lesson: Record in accumulated_knowledge

Example

Artifact claims: "Use the existing UserValidator class in src/validators.py"

1. Extract claim: existence (UserValidator in src/validators.py)
2. Check: grep -n "class UserValidator" src/validators.py
3. Result: class not found
4. Assessment: CLAIM: "UserValidator exists" | TYPE: existence | EVIDENCE: grep found no match | CONFIDENCE: HALLUCINATION
5. Recovery: Correct to "Create new UserValidator class" or find actual validator location

Integration with Develop Workflow

Invoke after: gathering-requirements (verify codebase claims), design-exploration (verify technical capabilities), writing-plans (verify implementation assumptions), roundtable flags hallucination concerns.

- Accepting claims without checking evidence - Assigning VERIFIED without verification - Silently correcting hallucinations (must document) - Proceeding with unresolved HALLUCINATION findings - Skipping propagation check for detected hallucinations

Self-Check

• Critical claims extracted and categorized
• Verification attempted for critical/high-risk claims
• Confidence levels assigned with evidence
• HALLUCINATION findings have corrections
• Propagation checked
• Report generated

If ANY unchecked: complete before returning. Do not return a partial verification report.

<FINAL_EMPHASIS> Hallucinations are confident lies. Every claim needs evidence or explicit uncertainty. When you find one, trace its spread and correct at source. The development workflow depends on factual grounding. </FINAL_EMPHASIS>