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/arielshad/balagan-agentWrote 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/commands/arielshad/balagan-agent/fact-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/arielshad/balagan-agent/fact-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/arielshad/balagan-agent/fact-check/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/commands/arielshad/balagan-agent/fact-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/arielshad/balagan-agent/fact-check.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 | $0.00006 | $0.00388 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00155 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00078 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00039 |
Grade A, and why
fact-check 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 2mo 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to fact-check — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
Fact-check the following claim: $ARGUMENTS
Verification Process
1. Claim Decomposition
- Break the claim into verifiable components
- Identify key facts that need checking
- Note any ambiguities in the claim
2. Source Search
For each factual component:
- Find primary sources (official data, academic papers)
- Find secondary sources (reputable journalism)
- Look for counter-evidence
3. Verification Assessment
For each component, determine:
- TRUE: Strong evidence supports this
- FALSE: Strong evidence contradicts this
- PARTIALLY TRUE: Some aspects correct, others not
- UNVERIFIABLE: Cannot confirm with available sources
- MISLEADING: Technically true but lacks context
4. Context Analysis
- Is the claim missing important context?
- Is it outdated information presented as current?
- Are there caveats being omitted?
5. Source Quality Evaluation
Rate sources on:
- Authority (expertise of source)
- Recency (how current)
- Objectivity (potential bias)
- Corroboration (multiple sources agree)
Output Format
FACT CHECK REPORT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Claim: [Original claim]
Verdict: [TRUE / FALSE / PARTIALLY TRUE / MISLEADING / UNVERIFIABLE]
Confidence: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
SUMMARY:
[1-2 sentence summary of finding]
DETAILED ANALYSIS:
[Component-by-component breakdown]
KEY SOURCES:
[List of primary sources used]
IMPORTANT CONTEXT:
[Any context needed to fully understand]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Be rigorous and objective. Acknowledge uncertainty where it exists.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 66 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A 8dfbcf06822f
fact-check is a command published in the GitHub repository arielshad/balagan-agent (12 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 388 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to fact-check, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
fact-check compared with commands from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fact-checkarielshad/balagan-agent | Command | 12 | 7mo ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 6 | Claude Code |
| awesome-chatgpttaishi-i/awesome-ChatGPT-repositories | Command | 3.4k | yesterday | CC0-1.0 | A | 0 | Claude Code |
| commitechoVic/blade-code | Command | 181 | 24d ago | MIT | A | 8 | Claude Code |
| propsmill/infrahub-mcp | Command | 10 | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 18 | Claude Code |
| recallnaimkatiman/continuous-improvement | Command | 9 | 6d ago | MIT | A | 44 | Claude Code |
| claude-requestverivus-oss/llm-cli-gateway | Command | 16 | 3d ago | MIT | A | 14 | Claude Code |
| watchnaimkatiman/continuous-improvement | Command | 9 | 6d ago | MIT | A | 12 | Claude Code |