Upload 3 files

skills/fact-checker/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,328 @@
+---
+name: fact-checker
+description: Comprehensive fact-checking and verification system for analyzing text, articles, or webpage content for factual accuracy. Use when users ask to verify claims, fact-check articles, assess credibility of information, check sources, validate statements, or determine if something is true or false. Also use for requests to analyze misinformation, verify news articles, check social media claims, or assess the reliability of sources.
+---
+
+# Fact Checker
+
+## Overview
+
+Analyze text, articles, and webpage content for factual accuracy using rigorous verification methodology. Extract verifiable claims, cross-reference against trusted academic and authoritative sources, assess credibility, and provide comprehensive verification reports with supporting evidence.
+
+## Fact-Checking Workflow
+
+Follow these steps for thorough fact-checking:
+
+1. **Claim Extraction** - Identify all verifiable factual claims
+2. **Source Research** - Search trusted sources for verification
+3. **Credibility Assessment** - Evaluate each claim with evidence
+4. **Quality Rating** - Score sources using established criteria
+5. **Report Generation** - Compile findings in structured format
+
+## Step 1: Claim Extraction
+
+Identify and list all factual claims that can be verified:
+
+**Extract claims that are:**
+- Specific and measurable (statistics, dates, quotes)
+- Objectively verifiable (events, facts, scientific statements)
+- Attributable to specific sources (when cited)
+
+**Exclude:**
+- Opinions and subjective judgments
+- Future predictions (unless assessing past predictions)
+- Vague or ambiguous statements
+- Questions or rhetorical statements
+
+**Format extracted claims as:**
+```
+Claim 1: [Specific factual statement]
+Claim 2: [Specific factual statement]
+Claim 3: [Specific factual statement]
+```
+
+## Step 2: Source Research
+
+For each claim, search trusted sources systematically:
+
+**Search priority order:**
+1. **Academic sources first** - Use web_search with terms like "site:scholar.google.com [claim]", "site:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov [claim]", or "[claim] peer reviewed study"
+2. **Government databases** - For statistics and official data, search "site:gov [claim]" or specific databases (census.gov, cdc.gov, etc.)
+3. **Fact-checking organizations** - Search "site:snopes.com [claim]", "site:politifact.com [claim]", "site:factcheck.org [claim]"
+4. **Reputable news sources** - Cross-reference with established news organizations
+5. **Domain-specific experts** - For specialized topics, seek expert sources
+
+**Search strategies:**
+- Use web_search tool with specific keywords from the claim
+- Search for both supporting and contradictory evidence
+- Use web_fetch to retrieve full content of promising sources
+- Check multiple independent sources for corroboration
+- Look for original/primary sources when possible
+
+**For each claim, aim to find:**
+- At least 2-3 independent sources
+- Primary sources when available
+- Recent sources (especially for current events)
+- Sources with documented methodology
+
+## Step 3: Credibility Assessment
+
+For each claim, provide a detailed assessment:
+
+### Verification Status
+
+Assign one of these statuses (see references/verification_methodology.md for detailed criteria):
+
+**TRUE:** Supported by reliable evidence from multiple sources with no significant contradictions
+
+**FALSE:** Contradicted by reliable evidence; demonstrably incorrect
+
+**PARTIALLY TRUE:** Contains elements of truth but incomplete, misleading, or lacks crucial context
+
+**UNVERIFIED:** Insufficient evidence to confirm or deny; conflicting sources without resolution
+
+**OPINION/SUBJECTIVE:** Matter of opinion or judgment rather than verifiable fact
+
+### Confidence Level
+
+Rate confidence based on evidence quality:
+
+**HIGH (85-100%):** Multiple independent reliable sources confirm; primary sources available; peer-reviewed research; expert consensus
+
+**MEDIUM (60-84%):** Reliable secondary sources; some corroboration; expert opinion without full consensus; indirect evidence
+
+**LOW (40-59%):** Limited sources; moderate credibility; circumstantial evidence; conflicting information exists
+
+### Supporting Evidence
+
+For each claim, document:
+- **Source citations** with web_fetch URLs when available
+- **Key evidence** from each source (paraphrased, never quoted directly)
+- **Source type** (peer-reviewed study, government data, news report, etc.)
+- **Publication date** and relevance
+- **Author credentials** when relevant
+
+### Contradictory Evidence
+
+Document any conflicting information found:
+- Note sources that contradict the claim
+- Explain discrepancies when possible
+- Highlight areas of ongoing debate
+- Flag when context changes interpretation
+
+## Step 4: Source Quality Rating
+
+Evaluate each source using these criteria (see references/verification_methodology.md for scoring details):
+
+**Calculate credibility score (1-100) based on:**
+
+1. **Source Credibility (40% weight)**
+   - Peer-reviewed academic: 90-100 points
+   - Government/official statistics: 80-95 points
+   - Reputable news organization: 70-85 points
+   - Expert opinion: 60-80 points
+   - General news/blogs: 30-60 points
+   - Anonymous/unverified: 0-30 points
+
+2. **Methodology Quality (30% weight)**
+   - Research design rigor
+   - Sample size adequacy
+   - Statistical significance
+   - Control measures
+   - Transparency of methods
+
+3. **Recency (15% weight)**
+   - Within 6 months: 90-100 points
+   - 6 months to 2 years: 70-89 points
+   - 2-5 years: 50-69 points
+   - Over 5 years: 0-49 points
+   - (Note: Less important for historical facts)
+
+4. **Corroboration (15% weight)**
+   - 5+ independent sources: 90-100 points
+   - 3-4 independent sources: 70-89 points
+   - 1-2 sources: 50-69 points
+   - Uncorroborated: 0-49 points
+
+**Total Score Formula:**
+(Source Credibility × 0.40) + (Methodology × 0.30) + (Recency × 0.15) + (Corroboration × 0.15)
+
+## Step 5: Report Generation
+
+Compile findings using this structure:
+
+### Executive Summary
+Provide a concise overview (2-4 sentences):
+- Overall credibility assessment
+- Number of claims verified/debunked
+- Key findings or concerns
+- Overall credibility score (1-100)
+
+### Detailed Findings
+
+For each claim, include:
+
+```
+**Claim [number]: [Statement of claim]**
+
+**Verification Status:** TRUE/FALSE/PARTIALLY TRUE/UNVERIFIED/OPINION
+**Confidence Level:** HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW ([percentage]%)
+
+**Assessment:**
+[2-3 sentence explanation of verification outcome]
+
+**Supporting Evidence:**
+- [Source 1] (Credibility: [score]/100) - [Key evidence paraphrased]
+- [Source 2] (Credibility: [score]/100) - [Key evidence paraphrased]
+- [Additional sources as needed]
+
+**Contradictory Evidence:**
+[Any conflicting information, or "None found"]
+
+**Context Notes:**
+[Important context, limitations, or caveats]
+```
+
+### Source Bibliography
+
+List all sources with credibility ratings:
+
+```
+1. [Source Title/Organization]
+   - URL: [link]
+   - Type: [Peer-reviewed/Government/News/etc.]
+   - Date: [publication date]
+   - Credibility Score: [score]/100
+   - Strengths: [key strengths]
+   - Limitations: [any concerns]
+
+2. [Continue for all sources...]
+```
+
+### Overall Credibility Score
+
+Provide aggregate assessment:
+
+**Content Credibility: [score]/100**
+
+**Breakdown:**
+- Claims verified as TRUE: [X]
+- Claims verified as FALSE: [X]
+- Claims PARTIALLY TRUE: [X]
+- Claims UNVERIFIED: [X]
+- Average source credibility: [score]/100
+
+**Interpretation:**
+[Explanation of what the score means]
+
+### Recommendations
+
+Provide actionable recommendations:
+
+**For further verification:**
+- [Specific actions to improve verification]
+- [Additional sources to consult]
+- [Areas requiring expert review]
+
+**Red flags identified:**
+- [Any concerning patterns or issues]
+- [Potential biases or conflicts of interest]
+- [Methodological concerns]
+
+## Domain-Specific Guidance
+
+### Medical/Health Claims
+- Prioritize PubMed, peer-reviewed medical journals, CDC, WHO
+- Check for FDA approval status when relevant
+- Look for clinical trial data and meta-analyses
+- Be extremely cautious with anecdotal evidence
+- Consider medical consensus
+
+### Scientific Claims
+- Search Google Scholar and peer-reviewed journals
+- Check for replication studies
+- Verify methodology and sample sizes
+- Look for scientific consensus
+- Note any conflicts of interest
+
+### Statistical Claims
+- Verify with original government databases
+- Check sampling methodology and margin of error
+- Look for statistical significance
+- Consider time period and context
+- Watch for cherry-picking
+
+### Historical Claims
+- Seek primary sources and archival records
+- Cross-reference with multiple historians
+- Check academic historical journals
+- Consider historiographical debates
+- Note source dating
+
+### Political Claims
+- Use nonpartisan fact-checkers (Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org)
+- Verify with official government records
+- Check for full context and complete quotes
+- Compare multiple news sources
+- Note partisan framing
+
+### Breaking News
+- Exercise extra caution with very recent claims
+- Flag information as preliminary when appropriate
+- Verify with multiple independent sources
+- Note when situation is still developing
+- Update assessment as more information emerges
+
+## Important Guidelines
+
+**Always:**
+- Search for both supporting and contradictory evidence
+- Paraphrase information from sources (never quote directly)
+- Cite sources with URLs when available
+- Acknowledge uncertainty when evidence is limited
+- Consider context and nuance
+- Note when claims are matters of opinion
+- Flag outdated information
+- Disclose methodological limitations
+
+**Never:**
+- Accept first source without verification
+- Ignore publication dates
+- Overlook conflicts of interest
+- Cherry-pick supporting evidence
+- Quote copyrighted content directly
+- Make overconfident claims
+- Ignore credible contradictory evidence
+- Conflate correlation with causation
+
+**When evidence is limited:**
+- Clearly state limitations
+- Mark claims as UNVERIFIED
+- Suggest additional verification methods
+- Note what information would be needed for verification
+
+## Reference Materials
+
+This skill includes detailed reference documentation:
+
+### references/trusted_sources.md
+Comprehensive guide to reliable sources organized by category:
+- Academic and research databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, arXiv, etc.)
+- Government and official statistics (Census, CDC, WHO, etc.)
+- Fact-checking organizations (Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, etc.)
+- Reputable news organizations with editorial standards
+- Domain-specific sources (medical, scientific, legal, economic)
+- Source quality criteria and red flags
+
+**When to reference:** For guidance on which sources to prioritize for different types of claims.
+
+### references/verification_methodology.md
+Detailed methodology for verification and credibility assessment:
+- Verification status definitions and criteria
+- Confidence level guidelines
+- Credibility scoring methodology with formulas
+- Special considerations for different domains
+- Common verification pitfalls and best practices
+- Context assessment frameworks
+
+**When to reference:** For detailed guidance on assigning verification statuses, calculating credibility scores, or applying domain-specific verification methods.

skills/fact-checker/references/trusted_sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
+# Trusted Sources for Fact-Checking
+
+## Academic and Research Databases
+
+### Primary Sources (Highest Credibility)
+- **Google Scholar** (scholar.google.com) - Comprehensive academic search engine
+- **PubMed** (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) - Biomedical and life sciences literature
+- **arXiv** (arxiv.org) - Preprints in physics, mathematics, computer science
+- **JSTOR** (jstor.org) - Academic journals and primary sources
+- **Web of Science** - Citation database for scientific research
+- **Semantic Scholar** (semanticscholar.org) - AI-powered research tool
+- **IEEE Xplore** - Engineering, computer science, and electronics
+
+### Institutional Sources
+- **University research repositories** - Institution-specific research databases
+- **National libraries** - Government-maintained scholarly collections
+- **Research institution publications** - Think tanks and research centers
+
+## Government and Official Statistics
+
+### Government Databases
+- **Data.gov** - US government open data
+- **Census Bureau** (census.gov) - US demographic and economic data
+- **Bureau of Labor Statistics** (bls.gov) - Employment, inflation, economic indicators
+- **CDC** (cdc.gov) - Health statistics and disease information
+- **FDA** (fda.gov) - Drug, food, and medical device information
+- **EPA** (epa.gov) - Environmental data and regulations
+- **National Archives** - Historical government documents
+
+### International Organizations
+- **World Bank** (worldbank.org) - Global development data
+- **WHO** (who.int) - Global health information
+- **UN Statistics** (unstats.un.org) - International demographic and economic data
+- **OECD** (oecd.org) - Economic and social statistics
+- **IMF** (imf.org) - Financial and economic data
+
+## Fact-Checking Organizations
+
+### Tier 1 Fact-Checkers (Highest Reliability)
+- **Snopes** (snopes.com) - General fact-checking, claims verification
+- **PolitiFact** (politifact.com) - Political claims, Truth-O-Meter ratings
+- **FactCheck.org** (factcheck.org) - Political and policy claims
+- **Reuters Fact Check** (reuters.com/fact-check) - News and viral claims
+- **AP Fact Check** (apnews.com/ap-fact-check) - News verification
+- **Full Fact** (fullfact.org) - UK-focused fact-checking
+
+### International Fact-Checkers
+- **Africa Check** - African continent fact-checking
+- **Chequeado** - Latin American fact-checking
+- **Les Décodeurs** (Le Monde) - French fact-checking
+- **Correctiv** - German investigative journalism and fact-checking
+
+## Reputable News Organizations
+
+### Tier 1 (Highest Editorial Standards)
+- **Associated Press** (AP)
+- **Reuters**
+- **BBC News**
+- **The New York Times**
+- **The Washington Post**
+- **The Wall Street Journal**
+- **The Guardian**
+- **Financial Times**
+- **NPR**
+- **PBS NewsHour**
+
+### Tier 2 (Strong Editorial Standards)
+- **The Economist**
+- **The Atlantic**
+- **ProPublica** (investigative journalism)
+- **Bloomberg News**
+- **Los Angeles Times**
+- **The Boston Globe**
+- **USA Today**
+
+## Specialized Domain Sources
+
+### Medical and Health
+- **The Lancet** - Medical journal
+- **New England Journal of Medicine** - Medical research
+- **JAMA** - Journal of the American Medical Association
+- **Mayo Clinic** - Medical information
+- **Johns Hopkins Medicine** - Health information and research
+
+### Science and Technology
+- **Nature** - Scientific journal
+- **Science** - Scientific journal (AAAS)
+- **Scientific American** - Science journalism
+- **MIT Technology Review** - Technology analysis
+- **Ars Technica** - Technology news and analysis
+
+### Legal and Policy
+- **Supreme Court Database** - Legal decisions
+- **Congressional Record** - Legislative proceedings
+- **Federal Register** - Federal regulations
+- **Think tanks** - Brookings Institution, RAND Corporation, Council on Foreign Relations
+
+### Economics and Business
+- **Federal Reserve** - Economic data and research
+- **National Bureau of Economic Research** - Economic research
+- **World Economic Forum** - Economic analysis
+
+## Source Quality Criteria
+
+### Credibility Indicators
+1. **Peer review status** - Has the work been peer-reviewed?
+2. **Author credentials** - What are the author's qualifications and affiliations?
+3. **Publication reputation** - What is the journal or publisher's impact factor?
+4. **Methodology** - Is the research methodology sound and transparent?
+5. **Citations** - How often is this source cited by others?
+6. **Conflicts of interest** - Are potential biases disclosed?
+7. **Replication** - Have the findings been replicated?
+8. **Recency** - How current is the information?
+
+### Red Flags
+- Anonymous or unattributed sources
+- Lack of citations or references
+- Sensationalized headlines
+- Partisan or advocacy websites without disclosure
+- Unverifiable claims
+- Poor grammar or unprofessional presentation
+- Circular sourcing (sources citing each other)
+- Cherry-picked data
+
+## Domain-Specific Considerations
+
+### Medical Claims
+- Prioritize peer-reviewed medical journals
+- Check for FDA approval status
+- Verify with medical institutions (Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins)
+- Be cautious of anecdotal evidence
+
+### Scientific Claims
+- Look for peer-reviewed publications
+- Check for replication studies
+- Verify methodology and sample sizes
+- Consider scientific consensus
+
+### Statistical Claims
+- Verify with original data sources (government databases)
+- Check methodology and sample sizes
+- Look for margin of error
+- Consider time period and context
+
+### Historical Claims
+- Verify with primary sources when possible
+- Cross-reference with multiple historians
+- Check archival records
+- Consider historiographical debates
+
+### Political Claims
+- Use nonpartisan fact-checkers
+- Verify with official government sources
+- Check for context and full quotes
+- Compare multiple news sources

skills/fact-checker/references/verification_methodology.md

@@ -0,0 +1,316 @@
+# Verification Methodology
+
+## Verification Status Categories
+
+### TRUE
+**Definition:** The claim is accurate and supported by reliable evidence.
+
+**Criteria:**
+- Supported by multiple high-quality sources
+- Primary sources confirm the claim
+- No significant contradictory evidence exists
+- Context does not materially change the claim
+
+**Confidence Levels:**
+- **High Confidence:** Multiple peer-reviewed sources or primary sources
+- **Medium Confidence:** Reliable secondary sources with good methodology
+- **Low Confidence:** Single reliable source or indirect evidence
+
+### FALSE
+**Definition:** The claim is demonstrably incorrect.
+
+**Criteria:**
+- Contradicted by reliable evidence
+- Based on misrepresentation or fabrication
+- Lacks any credible supporting evidence
+- Context reveals the claim to be misleading
+
+**Confidence Levels:**
+- **High Confidence:** Multiple sources debunk the claim; clear evidence of falsehood
+- **Medium Confidence:** Contradicted by reliable sources; limited supporting evidence
+- **Low Confidence:** Likely false but evidence is incomplete
+
+### PARTIALLY TRUE
+**Definition:** The claim contains elements of truth but is incomplete, misleading, or lacks important context.
+
+**Criteria:**
+- Core fact is accurate but missing crucial context
+- Claim is technically true but misleading in presentation
+- Some parts are accurate while others are not
+- Truth depends on specific interpretation or framing
+
+**Examples:**
+- Statistics cited correctly but from outdated source
+- Quote is accurate but taken out of context
+- Claim is true for subset but generalized incorrectly
+
+### UNVERIFIED
+**Definition:** Insufficient evidence exists to confirm or deny the claim.
+
+**Criteria:**
+- No reliable sources found to support or contradict
+- Claim is too vague or ambiguous to verify
+- Sources conflict without clear resolution
+- Evidence is unavailable or inaccessible
+
+**Note:** Unverified does not mean false; it means verification is not currently possible.
+
+### OPINION/SUBJECTIVE
+**Definition:** The statement is a matter of opinion, prediction, or subjective judgment rather than verifiable fact.
+
+**Examples:**
+- "The best movie of the year"
+- "This policy will be harmful"
+- Future predictions
+- Value judgments
+
+**Note:** While opinions cannot be fact-checked, underlying factual premises can be verified.
+
+## Confidence Level Guidelines
+
+### High Confidence (85-100%)
+**Requirements:**
+- Multiple independent, highly reliable sources confirm
+- Primary sources available
+- Peer-reviewed research supports claim
+- Expert consensus exists
+- Recent information (for current events)
+
+**Examples:**
+- Peer-reviewed scientific studies with replication
+- Official government statistics
+- Court records and legal documents
+- Multiple firsthand accounts
+
+### Medium Confidence (60-84%)
+**Requirements:**
+- Reliable secondary sources support claim
+- Some corroboration but gaps exist
+- Expert opinion without full consensus
+- Indirect evidence supports claim
+
+**Examples:**
+- Reputable news reports without primary source confirmation
+- Single academic study without replication
+- Expert testimony without peer review
+- Circumstantial evidence
+
+### Low Confidence (40-59%)
+**Requirements:**
+- Limited sources available
+- Sources have moderate credibility
+- Evidence is circumstantial or indirect
+- Conflicting information exists
+
+**Examples:**
+- Single news report without corroboration
+- Unnamed or anonymous sources
+- Preliminary findings
+- Historical claims with limited documentation
+
+### Insufficient Evidence (<40%)
+**Characteristics:**
+- Very few or no reliable sources
+- Highly speculative or based on rumor
+- Sources lack credibility
+- Too little information to make determination
+
+## Credibility Scoring Methodology
+
+### Source Credibility (40% weight)
+
+**Peer-reviewed academic (90-100 points):**
+- Published in high-impact journal
+- Rigorous peer review
+- Reputable institution
+
+**Government/Official statistics (80-95 points):**
+- Official government database
+- Established methodology
+- Transparent data collection
+
+**Reputable news organization (70-85 points):**
+- Editorial standards
+- Fact-checking process
+- Track record of accuracy
+
+**Expert opinion (60-80 points):**
+- Relevant credentials
+- Independent expert
+- Disclosed affiliations
+
+**General news/blogs (30-60 points):**
+- Variable credibility
+- May lack fact-checking
+- Potential biases
+
+**Anonymous/unverified (0-30 points):**
+- No attribution
+- No verification possible
+- High risk of inaccuracy
+
+### Methodology Quality (30% weight)
+
+**Excellent methodology (90-100 points):**
+- Rigorous research design
+- Large sample size
+- Controlled conditions
+- Statistical significance
+- Replication studies
+
+**Good methodology (70-89 points):**
+- Sound research design
+- Adequate sample size
+- Clear methodology
+- Appropriate controls
+
+**Fair methodology (50-69 points):**
+- Basic research approach
+- Limited sample size
+- Some methodological concerns
+- Incomplete controls
+
+**Poor methodology (0-49 points):**
+- Flawed research design
+- Insufficient data
+- Biased sampling
+- Lack of controls
+
+### Recency (15% weight)
+
+**Very recent (90-100 points):**
+- Within last 6 months
+- Highly relevant for current events
+- Up-to-date information
+
+**Recent (70-89 points):**
+- 6 months to 2 years
+- Still relevant for most topics
+- Minor temporal concerns
+
+**Moderately dated (50-69 points):**
+- 2-5 years old
+- May need updating
+- Context may have changed
+
+**Dated (0-49 points):**
+- Over 5 years old
+- Significant context changes
+- Potentially outdated information
+
+**Note:** Recency matters less for historical facts and more for statistics, policies, and current events.
+
+### Corroboration (15% weight)
+
+**Highly corroborated (90-100 points):**
+- 5+ independent sources confirm
+- Consensus across multiple domains
+- No credible contradictions
+
+**Well corroborated (70-89 points):**
+- 3-4 independent sources confirm
+- Some agreement across sources
+- Minor contradictions on details
+
+**Minimally corroborated (50-69 points):**
+- 1-2 sources confirm
+- Limited additional evidence
+- Some conflicting information
+
+**Uncorroborated (0-49 points):**
+- Single source or no confirmation
+- Conflicting information
+- Lack of verification
+
+## Overall Credibility Score Calculation
+
+**Formula:**
+Total Score = (Source Credibility × 0.40) + (Methodology × 0.30) + (Recency × 0.15) + (Corroboration × 0.15)
+
+**Score Interpretation:**
+- **90-100:** Highly reliable - Strong evidence from multiple excellent sources
+- **80-89:** Very reliable - Good evidence from reputable sources
+- **70-79:** Reliable - Adequate evidence with minor concerns
+- **60-69:** Moderately reliable - Some concerns about evidence quality
+- **50-59:** Questionable - Significant concerns about reliability
+- **Below 50:** Unreliable - Insufficient or poor-quality evidence
+
+## Special Considerations
+
+### Statistical Claims
+- Verify original data source
+- Check for sampling methodology
+- Look for margin of error
+- Consider statistical significance
+- Check for cherry-picking
+
+### Medical/Health Claims
+- Prioritize peer-reviewed medical journals
+- Check for FDA approval (when relevant)
+- Look for clinical trial data
+- Consider consensus of medical community
+- Be wary of anecdotal evidence
+
+### Historical Claims
+- Seek primary sources
+- Cross-reference with historians
+- Consider historiographical context
+- Check archival records
+- Note scholarly debates
+
+### Political Claims
+- Use nonpartisan fact-checkers
+- Verify with official records
+- Check for full context and quotes
+- Compare multiple news sources
+- Note partisan framing
+
+### Scientific Claims
+- Look for peer review
+- Check for replication studies
+- Verify methodology
+- Consider scientific consensus
+- Note any conflicts of interest
+
+### Breaking News
+- Use extra caution with very recent claims
+- Verify with multiple sources
+- Note when information is developing
+- Flag preliminary information
+- Update as more information becomes available
+
+## Context Assessment
+
+**Critical Context Elements:**
+1. **Timing:** When did the event occur or statement was made?
+2. **Full quote:** Is the quote complete or taken out of context?
+3. **Methodology:** How was data collected or conclusion reached?
+4. **Scope:** Does the claim overgeneralize or oversimplify?
+5. **Causation vs correlation:** Is causality inappropriately claimed?
+6. **Comparison:** Are comparisons fair and appropriate?
+7. **Definition:** Are terms used consistently and appropriately?
+
+## Common Verification Pitfalls
+
+### Avoid:
+- Accepting first source without verification
+- Ignoring publication date
+- Missing important context
+- Overlooking conflicts of interest
+- Failing to check primary sources
+- Cherry-picking supporting evidence
+- Ignoring credible contradictory evidence
+- Conflating correlation with causation
+- Over-relying on single source type
+
+### Best Practices:
+- Cross-reference multiple independent sources
+- Seek primary sources when possible
+- Check author credentials and affiliations
+- Verify publication reputation
+- Consider recency and relevance
+- Look for peer review
+- Check for replication
+- Assess methodology
+- Consider broader context
+- Flag uncertainties clearly