fact-check

name	fact-check
description	Verify claims, statements, or assertions by cross-referencing web, news, academic, and social sources. Produces a confidence-scored verdict with full evidence chain. Use when verifying claims, checking facts, or validating statements.
argument-hint	[claim or statement to verify]
allowed-tools	mcp__RivalSearchMCP__web_search, mcp__RivalSearchMCP__social_search, mcp__RivalSearchMCP__news_aggregation, mcp__RivalSearchMCP__scientific_research, mcp__RivalSearchMCP__github_search, mcp__RivalSearchMCP__content_operations, mcp__RivalSearchMCP__document_analysis, mcp__RivalSearchMCP__research_topic, Read, Grep, Glob, WebFetch, WebSearch

Fact Check

Verify the following claim: $ARGUMENTS

Follow these steps precisely using RivalSearchMCP tools. Report progress after each step.

Step 1: Claim Decomposition

Parse the claim into individually verifiable components. List each sub-claim and what evidence would confirm or refute it.

Step 2: Primary Source Search

Use web_search to find the origin of the claim:

• query: "$ARGUMENTS"
• num_results: 15
• extract_content: true

Identify where this claim first appeared. Use content_operations to retrieve the original source:

• operation: "retrieve", url: <source_url>, extraction_method: "markdown"

Step 3: Corroboration Search

Search for independent confirmation:

• web_search with query: "$ARGUMENTS", num_results: 10
• web_search with alternative phrasing of the claim, num_results: 10
• news_aggregation with query: "$ARGUMENTS", max_results: 10, time_range: "month"

Count how many independent sources confirm the claim.

Step 4: Counter-Evidence Search

Actively search for contradicting evidence:

• web_search with query: "$ARGUMENTS false OR debunked OR incorrect OR misleading", num_results: 10
• social_search with query: "$ARGUMENTS", platforms: ["reddit", "hackernews"], max_results_per_platform: 10

Look for rebuttals, corrections, retractions, or alternative explanations.

Step 5: Academic Verification

If the claim involves data, statistics, or technical facts:

• scientific_research with operation: "academic_search", query: "$ARGUMENTS", max_results: 5, sources: ["semantic_scholar", "arxiv"]

Check if peer-reviewed research supports or contradicts the claim.

Step 6: Deep Source Analysis

For the 2-3 most authoritative sources (for and against), use content_operations:

• operation: "retrieve", url: <source_url>, extraction_method: "markdown"
• operation: "analyze", content: , analysis_type: "general", extract_key_points: true

Read and assess the quality of each source.

Step 7: Compile Verdict

1. Claim Under Review — Quote the exact claim
2. Verdict — One of: Verified / Likely True / Unverified / Disputed / Likely False / False
3. Confidence Score — High / Medium-High / Medium / Medium-Low / Low
4. Evidence For — Sources supporting the claim with inline citations
5. Evidence Against — Sources contradicting the claim with inline citations
6. Primary Source Analysis — What the original source actually says
7. Context & Nuance — Important context that affects interpretation
8. Component Verdicts — If multiple sub-claims, verdict on each
9. Sources — Complete list of all URLs consulted

Use clean markdown. Every factual statement must cite its source with Source Name format.