Install
$ agentstack add skill-alessiomarcone-agent-fieldbook-verify ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
About
Verify
Apply verification in proportion to risk and make uncertainty explicit.
Evidence gate
Run this before factual analysis. Count sources supplied by the user or actually retrieved in this task. If the count is zero, do not assess, compare, correct, or quote facts from pretrained knowledge. Label every claim ⚠️ Unverified — no evidence available, name the exact authoritative retrieval step, report that a verdict is not yet possible, and stop.
References
- Read
references/ai-literacy.mdfor knowledge gaps, sycophancy, and hallucination patterns. - Read
references/regole-distillate.mdfor cross-cutting verification rules.
Procedure
- After passing the evidence gate, classify risk. Use a quick check for reversible internal work and a source-backed check for consequential work.
- Extract substantive claims, especially names, dates, figures, quotes, citations, recent changes, and niche facts.
- Verify each claim against a source that actually supports it. A claim cannot receive ✅ or ❌ without a supplied or retrieved citation. Prefer current primary sources for product, legal, medical, financial, and technical claims.
- Check for sycophancy: neutralize the user's framing, seek counterevidence, and distinguish agreement from support.
- Inspect the process: undeclared assumptions, circular reasoning, missing cases, inconsistent calculations, or skipped acceptance criteria.
- Perform an independent final pass and state what would make the verdict wrong.
Claim labels
- ✅ Verified — directly supported by cited evidence.
- ⚠️ Plausible, not verified — include the exact verification step.
- ❌ Contradicted or fabricated — directly contradicted by cited evidence; provide a supported correction.
Close with an overall verdict and What would make this output wrong?
Boundaries
- Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- If retrieval tools or supplied sources are unavailable, every factual claim remains ⚠️. Do not provide remembered figures, dates, product history, or corrections; give only the exact authoritative source or retrieval step needed.
- If most claims remain unverified, recommend retrieval from authoritative sources.
- Never treat the model's confidence as evidence.
- Answer in the user's language.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: alessiomarcone
- Source: alessiomarcone/agent-fieldbook
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.