2.6k
GitHub Stars
2
Bundled Files
2 months ago
Catalog Refreshed
3 months ago
First Indexed
Readme & install
Copy the install command, review bundled files from the catalogue, and read any extended description pulled from the listing source.
Installation
Preview and clipboard use veilstrat where the catalogue uses aiagentskills.
npx veilstrat add skill openclaw/skills --skill geo-hallucination-checker- _meta.json305 B
- SKILL.md9.8 KB
Overview
This skill detects and annotates hallucinations, unsupported claims, fabricated studies, and incorrect conclusions in text so AI only cites verifiable content. It flags risky language, suggests evidence-friendly rewrites, and delivers a structured claim-level analysis to make content safe to publish or cite.
How this skill works
I parse the provided text into atomic factual claims, check available evidence (prioritizing user-provided sources), and classify each claim by status and risk level. The output includes a short risk summary, a claim-level table with reasons and suggested fixes, and—if requested—a hallucination-safe rewrite. I never invent sources and always mark unverifiable claims as unsupported or problematic.
When to use it
- When asked to fact-check, verify, or validate any written content.
- For medical, legal, financial, or technical claims that could cause harm if wrong.
- When text contains numbers, percentages, dates, study mentions, or strong superlatives.
- Before publishing GEO-optimized content that AI models may cite.
- When you want a safer, citation-ready rewrite of marketing or product copy.
Best practices
- Provide any source links or documents up front—these get priority in verification.
- Ask for an analysis-only pass first, then request a hallucination-safe rewrite if needed.
- Treat vague references (e.g., “a 2026 study”) as unsupported unless a precise citation is given.
- Prefer cautious language over absolutes: use ‘may’, ‘suggests’, or ‘early evidence’ when unsure.
- Mark high-risk medical/legal claims as ‘requires expert review’ if not clearly supported.
Example use cases
- Reviewing a landing page that claims specific clinical effects without citations.
- Checking a blog post that quotes percentages, sample sizes, or unnamed studies.
- Auditing FAQ content for overconfident guarantees or absolute statements.
- Validating GEO-targeted drafts to ensure they don’t invent institution names or reports.
- Turning unsupported marketing claims into citation-safe, compliant copy.
FAQ
I prioritize any sources you provide. I can use web searches only if you permit them; otherwise I label unverifiable claims as unsupported.
Do you ever create citations or study names to fix a hallucination?
No. I never invent sources, DOIs, or journal names. I recommend adding real citations or softening the claim.