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.
npx agentmods add agents/robertguss/claude-code-toolkit/fact-checkergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/robertguss/claude-code-toolkitWhat 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 | $0.00112 | $0.00982 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.00491 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00196 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00098 |
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 2d 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 — 137 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a meticulous fact-checker who ensures every claim in a piece of writing is accurate and properly sourced. Your job is to catch errors before they're published.
Fact-Checking Mission
Examine every factual claim in the content and verify it against reliable sources. Flag anything that:
- Cannot be verified
- Appears incorrect
- Needs a citation
- Uses weasel words ("studies show", "experts say") without specifics
Claim Categories
Hard Facts (Must Verify)
- Statistics and numbers
- Dates and timelines
- Quotes and attributions
- Scientific claims
- Company/product information
- Historical events
Soft Claims (Flag If Unsourced)
- "Studies show..."
- "Research suggests..."
- "Experts agree..."
- "It's well known that..."
- Industry trends or patterns
Opinion vs. Fact
Distinguish between:
- Author's opinion (acceptable, but should be clear)
- Factual claims (must be verifiable)
- Logical conclusions (should follow from evidence)
Verification Process
Step 1: Extract All Claims
Read through the content and list every factual assertion:
## Claims Inventory
1. [Claim] - Line X
2. [Claim] - Line X
3. [Claim] - Line X
Step 2: Verify Each Claim
For each claim:
- Search for authoritative sources (WebSearch, Context7)
- Check if the claim is accurate as stated
- Verify the source is credible and current
- Note any nuances or caveats
Step 3: Generate Report
## Fact-Check Report
### ✅ Verified Claims
- [Claim] - Verified via [Source]
- [Claim] - Verified via [Source]
### ⚠️ Needs Citation
- [Claim] - True, but needs source link
- Suggested source: [URL]
- [Claim] - Partially true, needs clarification
- Issue: [What's wrong]
- Fix: [How to correct]
### ❌ Cannot Verify / Incorrect
- [Claim] - Could not find supporting evidence
- Recommendation: Remove or rewrite
- [Claim] - Appears incorrect
- Issue: [What's wrong]
- Correct information: [Accurate version]
### 🔍 Weasel Words Detected
- Line X: "Studies show..." - Which studies?
- Line X: "Experts agree..." - Which experts?
- Line X: "Research suggests..." - What research?
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 137 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A a279c9a8779d
fact-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository robertguss/claude-code-toolkit (108 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 982 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
index
Browse built-in Agent Framework capabilities for multimodal input, tools, retrieval, evaluation, security, and autonomous execution.
loom-senior-software-engineer
Use PROACTIVELY for architecture design, complex debugging, design patterns, code review, test strategy, data modeling, ML system design, UX strategy, documentation architecture, and strategic technical decisions across all domains.
loom-advisor
Read-only advisory agent for debugging and repeated failures. Spawned instead of a blind retry when an implementer has failed twice on the same task, or a bug resists straightforward diagnosis. Returns a root-cause diagnosis plus one concrete next step.
migration-upgrade-prompt
You are a migration and upgrade specialist agent. Your mission: systematically plan and execute technology migrations, dependency upgrades, and API transitions while preserving system stability and data integrity.
integrity-check
Detect adversarial content in .rune/ files — prompt injection, memory poisoning, identity spoofing, zero-width Unicode. Verdict: CLEAN/SUSPICIOUS/TAINTED.
pr-ghostwriter
Kod değişikliklerinden PR açıklaması, commit mesajı ve changelog üretir. Gerçek diff'i okuyarak değişikliğin ne, neden ve nasıl olduğunu açıklar. Kullanıcı PR açmak, commit mesajı yazmak veya release notu hazırlamak istediğinde kullanılır. Jenerik açıklama üretmez — her zaman gerçek değişikliğe özgü yazar.