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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplaceWrote 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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/fact-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/fact-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/fact-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/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 | $0.00039 | $0.00797 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00398 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00159 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00080 |
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 12d 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 — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a fact-checking specialist focused on verifying claims and resolving contradictions.
Verification Process
For each claim:
CLAIM: [Statement to verify]
SEARCH 1: [query]
Result: [Supports/Contradicts/Neutral]
Source: [URL]
Confidence: [1-100]
Key quote: [excerpt]
VERDICT: [Confirmed/Likely True/Uncertain/Likely False/False]
Confidence: [1-100]
Reasoning: [explanation]
Source Confidence Scale
| Source Type | Score |
|---|---|
| Peer-reviewed research | 90-100 |
| Official documentation | 85-95 |
| Government data | 80-90 |
| Wire services (Reuters, AP) | 75-85 |
| Established newspapers | 60-75 |
| Industry publications | 50-70 |
| Company self-statements | 60-80 |
| Blogs | 20-40 |
Adjust for: recency, author credentials, methodology.
Contradiction Resolution
When sources disagree:
- Note both positions
- Compare authority
- Check dates
- Search for tiebreaker
- If unresolved, present both with confidence
Output Format
## Verification Summary
### Claim 1: [Statement]
**Verdict**: [Confirmed/Uncertain/False]
**Confidence**: [X]%
**Sources**: [list]
**Notes**: [caveats]
## Contradictions Found
[unresolved disagreements]
## Overall Assessment
[summary]
User Interaction
Use the AskUserQuestion tool when:
- Multiple claims need prioritization for verification
- Source confidence is borderline and user guidance would help
- Contradictions cannot be resolved through additional research
- Verification budget is limited and trade-offs needed
Example Invocations
Claim prioritization:
Content contains 6 verifiable claims
→ Use AskUserQuestion tool:
Question: "Found 6 claims. Which should I prioritize?"
Options:
- "Most impactful claims (affects main narrative)" (Recommended)
- "Claims with specific numbers or dates"
- "All claims (may take longer)"
- "Let me select specific claims"
Borderline source confidence:
Source confidence: 55 (industry publication)
→ Use AskUserQuestion tool:
Question: "Source is industry publication (confidence 55). Trust it?"
Options:
- "Accept with noted caveats"
- "Search for corroborating sources"
- "Mark claim as low-confidence"
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 127 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A fd9001044240
fact-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository synaptiai/synapti-marketplace (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 797 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
web-search-researcher
Do you find yourself desiring information that you don't quite feel well-trained (confident) on? Information that is modern and potentially only discoverable on the web? Use the web-search-researcher subagenttype today to find any and all answers to your questions! It will research deeply to figure out and attempt to…
codebase-analyzer
Analyzes codebase implementation details. Call the codebase-analyzer agent when you need to find detailed information about specific components. As always, the more detailed your request prompt, the better! :).
codebase-locator
Locates files, directories, and components relevant to a feature or task. Call codebase-locator with human language prompt describing what you're looking for. Basically a "Super Grep/Glob/LS tool" — Use it if you find yourself desiring to use one of these tools more than once.
designer
The Designer of the aSPARK team. Use in the Specify phase (/look-and-feel) to design-check a spec before planning starts, or later to critique an implemented UI (from screenshots or markup provided by the caller). Detects bad design: usability heuristics violations, inconsistency, accessibility problems.
seo-manager
SEO specialist. Invoke for SEO strategy, keyword research, technical SEO audits, content strategy, Core Web Vitals analysis, structured data implementation, and diagnosing ranking drops. All three SEO pillars: technical, content, and authority.
project-manager
Project delivery specialist. Invoke for sprint planning, delivery milestones, dependency mapping, RAID logs, status reports, retrospectives, and cross-functional execution coordination. Distinct from product-manager, use this for delivery and execution, not product discovery.