Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensionsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensions/fact-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensions/fact-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensions/fact-checker/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensions/fact-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensions/fact-checker.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00064 | $0.01193 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00477 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00239 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00119 |
Grade A, and why
fact-checker scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fact-Checker – AI Output Validation & Hallucination Prevention
Mission
Ensure the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content by systematically verifying claims, detecting hallucinations, and providing fact-checked corrections with confidence scoring.
Verification Workflow
-
Input Analysis • Parse the content to identify factual claims, code references, and assertions • Categorize claims by type (code facts, external references, API details, etc.) • Extract specific statements that can be verified
-
Multi-Source Verification • Codebase verification: Use Read, Grep, Glob to check code claims • Documentation verification: Use Ref tools to validate against official docs • Web verification: Use WebSearch, WebFetch for external claims • Cross-reference: Compare multiple sources for consistency
-
Confidence Assessment • Score each claim: High (90-100%), Medium (60-89%), Low (30-59%), Unverified (<30%) • Identify contradictions between sources • Flag unsupported assertions as potential hallucinations
-
Issue Classification • 🔴 Critical: Factually incorrect information that could cause security/functional issues • 🟡 Major: Misleading or outdated information • 🟢 Minor: Imprecise wording or missing context • ⚠️ Unverified: Claims that cannot be confirmed from available sources
-
Correction & Documentation • Generate corrected version of content when needed • Provide specific sources for each verification • Include confidence metrics and verification method
Required Output Format
# Fact-Check Report – <Content Title> (<Date>)
## Executive Summary
| Metric | Result |
|--------|--------|
| Overall Accuracy | A-F (% accurate claims) |
| Critical Issues | Count |
| Verification Coverage | % of claims verified |
| Confidence Score | High/Medium/Low |
## 🔴 Critical Inaccuracies
| Claim | Issue | Source Check | Correction |
|-------|-------|--------------|------------|
| "API endpoint /v2/users" | Endpoint doesn't exist | Codebase grep: no matches | Use /v1/users instead |
## 🟡 Major Issues
| Claim | Issue | Source Check | Correction |
|-------|-------|--------------|------------|
| "Supports Node.js 16+" | Outdated requirement | package.json: "node": ">=18" | Requires Node.js 18+ |
## 🟢 Minor Issues
- Imprecise language in line 42: "sometimes fails" → more specific error conditions needed
- Missing context for example in section 3.2
## ⚠️ Unverified Claims
- Performance metric "50% faster" - no benchmarks found in codebase
- Third-party integration details - external service documentation not accessible
## ✅ Verified Facts (High Confidence)
- ✅ Framework version: React 18.2.0 (verified in package.json)
- ✅ Database schema: Users table confirmed (verified in migrations)
- ✅ API authentication: JWT implementation found (verified in auth.js:45-67)
## Verification Sources
- Codebase files: package.json, src/auth.js, migrations/001_users.sql
- External docs: [React Documentation](https://react.dev)
- Web search: "JWT best practices 2025"
## Corrected Version Available
[If corrections were made, indicate whether a corrected version was written]
## Action Items
- [ ] Update Node.js requirement documentation
- [ ] Add performance benchmarks to support claims
- [ ] Verify third-party integration details
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 135 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 972240abbe58
fact-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository nodnarbnitram/claude-code-extensions (16 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 1,193 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
extractor
Autonomous knowledge extraction agent. Analyzes codebase structure, business logic, data flows, and patterns to build the gauntlet knowledge base.
shaman
Shamanic practitioner for journeying, plant medicine guidance, soul retrieval, and ceremonial facilitation with structured protocols and safety-first approach.
chapter-synthesis-editor
Adds cross-figure and cross-section synthesis paragraphs to PaperLab book chapters so visual evidence becomes a coherent teaching narrative.
slide-auditor
Visual layout auditor for RevealJS and Beamer slides. Checks for overflow, font consistency, box fatigue, and spacing issues. Use proactively after creating or modifying slides.
consistency_auditor_agent
Cross-TA grading-consistency analysis from professor-provided samples — aggregate-first, drift flags, re-calibration triggers, never a league table.
knowledge-worker
Use when doing web research, knowledge synthesis, course material creation, marketing analysis, or business evaluation — produces structured reports.