Menu
Multi-angle review of responses before delivery. Audits from 4 perspectives -- factual accuracy, logical consistency, completeness, and safety. Use for high-stakes responses where errors have real consequences.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Basé sur la classification professionnelle SOC
Complete methodology for preventing AI hallucinations. Use when accuracy is critical and you need Claude to verify before claiming, cite before asserting, and admit uncertainty instead of guessing.
Forces every code-related claim to include file:line citations. No citation means the claim must be verified or removed. Use when building documentation, writing code reviews, or any output that others will rely on.
Assign confidence scores (0-100) to every claim in a response. Helps users understand which parts are verified facts and which are educated guesses. Use when the user needs to know how much to trust each part of the answer.
Forces Claude to extract exact quotes from files before making claims about them. Prevents hallucinations by grounding every statement in actual text from the codebase. Use when working with large files or unfamiliar code.
Verify every claim from multiple independent angles -- code, docs, tests, git history. Use when you need high confidence that something is correct before acting on it.
Ensure every factual claim in a response is backed by verifiable evidence from the codebase, documentation, or external sources. Use when preparing technical documentation, code reviews, or any output where accuracy is non-negotiable.
| name | output-auditor |
| description | Multi-angle review of responses before delivery. Audits from 4 perspectives -- factual accuracy, logical consistency, completeness, and safety. Use for high-stakes responses where errors have real consequences. |
Review every response from 4 independent angles before delivery.
Is every claim true?
Check:
Does the response contradict itself?
Check:
Is anything missing?
Check:
Could this cause harm?
Check:
CRITICAL: Wrong information that would cause harm (wrong security advice, data-destroying command) -> Must fix before delivering. If you can't fix, do not deliver.
WARNING: Incomplete or potentially misleading information -> Fix if possible. If not, add a clear caveat.
MINOR: Style issues, missing context that isn't essential -> Fix if quick. Otherwise note for follow-up.
Before sending any response with code or technical advice:
[ ] Every file path verified with Glob [ ] Every function/variable verified with Grep or Read [ ] Steps are in correct order [ ] No self-contradictions [ ] The actual question is answered [ ] Dangerous operations have warnings [ ] Rollback path exists for destructive changes
