Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索敏感数据github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计提醒

ln-614-docs-fact-checkerln 614 文档事实检查器

Agent Skill

用于辅助文档、README、Markdown、说明文和内容稿件的整理与改写。它适合让 Agent 提炼结构、补齐章节、统一术语、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档。使用时应保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不要把未确认的信息写成确定结论;涉及对外文案时,还需要控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。

总安装

3,457

周安装

147

GitHub Stars

441

下载量

1,211
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ln-614-docs-fact-checker(ln 614 文档事实检查器)
来源仓库:https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills
仓库路径:skills/ln-614-docs-fact-checker
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-614-docs-fact-checker
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-614-docs-fact-checker

简介

用于文档、README 和内容稿件的整理与改写,适合提炼结构和统一术语。

  • 适用于需要补齐章节、检查链接或把零散材料整理成可读文档的场景。
  • 使用时保留项目已有事实、命令和路径,不把未确认信息写成确定结论。
  • 涉及对外文案时需控制语气,避免过度营销或夸大能力。
  • 安装前建议确认权限范围和维护状态,确保不会触发不必要的网络或文件操作。

SKILL.md

Paths: File paths (shared/, references/, ../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root. If shared/ is missing, fetch files via WebFetch from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/master/skills/{path}.

Documentation Fact-Checker (L3 Worker)

Type: L3 Worker

Specialized worker that extracts verifiable claims from documentation and validates each against the actual codebase.

Purpose & Scope

  • Prioritize canonical and high-claim docs, then extract verifiable claims from markdown documentation
  • Verify each claim against codebase (Grep/Glob/Read/Bash)
  • Detect cross-document contradictions (same fact stated differently)
  • Includes docs/reference/, docs/tasks/, tests/ in scope
  • Single invocation (not per-document) -> cross-doc checks require global view
  • Does NOT check scope alignment or structural quality

Inputs

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md, shared/references/docs_quality_contract.md, shared/references/docs_quality_rules.json, shared/references/markdown_read_protocol.md, shared/references/mcp_tool_preferences.md, and shared/references/mcp_integration_patterns.md.

Receives contextStore with: tech_stack, project_root, output_dir.

Workflow

Phase 1: Parse Context

Extract tech stack, project root, output_dir from contextStore.

Phase 2: Discover Documents

Glob markdown docs in project. Exclude:

  • node_modules/, .git/, dist/, build/
  • docs/project/.audit/ (audit output, not project docs)
  • CHANGELOG.md (historical by design)

If docs/project/.context/doc_registry.json exists:

  • load it first
  • prioritize doc_role=canonical
  • prioritize files with dense claim types (paths, endpoints, versions, commands)
  • de-prioritize navigation hubs unless contradictions point back to them

Phase 3: Extract Claims (Layer 1)

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/two_layer_detection.md for detection methodology.

For each prioritized document, use section-first reads to extract verifiable claims using Grep/regex patterns.

For code files referenced by docs, use outline() and discovery-first read_file() before built-in reads. Only request edit_ready=true, verbosity="full" if verification turns into a follow-up edit. Use hex-graph only when entity identity or reference resolution remains ambiguous after direct manifest/file checks.

MANDATORY READ: Load references/claim_extraction_rules.md for detailed extraction patterns per claim type.

9 claim types:

#Claim TypeWhat to ExtractExtraction Pattern
1File pathsPaths to source files, dirs, configsBacktick paths, link targets matching src/, lib/, app/, docs/, config/, tests/
2VersionsPackage/tool/image versionsSemver patterns near dependency/package/image names
3Counts/StatisticsNumeric claims about codebase`\d+ (modules
4API endpointsHTTP method + path`(GET
5Config keys/env varsEnvironment variables, config keys[A-Z][A-Z_]{2,} in config context, process.env., os.environ
6CLI commandsShell commandsnpm run, python, docker, make in backtick blocks
7Function/class namesCode entity referencesCamelCase/snake_case in backticks or code context
8Line number refsfile:line patterns[\w/.]+:\d+ patterns
9Docker/infra claimsImage tags, ports, service namesImage names with tags, port mappings in docker context

Output per claim: {doc_path, line, claim_type, claim_value, raw_context}.

Phase 4: Verify Claims (Layer 2)

For each extracted claim, verify against codebase:

Claim TypeVerification MethodFinding Type
File pathsGlob or ls for existencePATH_NOT_FOUND
VersionsGrep package files (package.json, requirements.txt, docker-compose.yml), compareVERSION_MISMATCH
CountsGlob/Grep to count actual entities, compare with claimed numberCOUNT_MISMATCH
API endpointsGrep route/controller definitionsENDPOINT_NOT_FOUND
Config keysGrep in source for actual usageCONFIG_NOT_FOUND
CLI commandsCheck package.json scripts, Makefile targets, binary existenceCOMMAND_NOT_FOUND
Function/classGrep in source for definitionENTITY_NOT_FOUND
Line numbersRead file at line, check content matches claimed contextLINE_MISMATCH
Docker/infraGrep docker-compose.yml for image tags, portsINFRA_MISMATCH

False positive filtering (Layer 2 reasoning):

  • Template placeholders ({placeholder}, YOUR_*, <project>, xxx) -> skip
  • Example/hypothetical paths (preceded by "e.g.", "for example", "such as") -> skip
  • Future-tense claims ("will add", "planned", "TODO") -> skip or LOW
  • Conditional claims ("if using X, configure Y") -> verify only if X detected in tech_stack
  • External service paths (URLs, external repos) -> skip
  • Paths in SCOPE/comment HTML blocks describing other projects -> skip
  • .env.example values -> skip (expected to differ from actual)

Phase 5: Cross-Document Consistency

Compare extracted claims across documents to find contradictions:

CheckMethodFinding Type
Same path, different locationsGroup file path claims, check if all point to same real pathCROSS_DOC_PATH_CONFLICT
Same entity, different versionGroup version claims by entity name, compare valuesCROSS_DOC_VERSION_CONFLICT
Same metric, different countGroup count claims by subject, compare valuesCROSS_DOC_COUNT_CONFLICT
Endpoint in spec but not in guideCompare endpoint claims across api_spec.md vs guides/runbookCROSS_DOC_ENDPOINT_GAP

Algorithm:

claim_index = {}  # key: normalized(claim_type + entity), value: [{doc, line, value}]
FOR claim IN all_verified_claims WHERE claim.verified == true:
  key = normalize(claim.claim_type, claim.entity_name)
  claim_index[key].append({doc: claim.doc_path, line: claim.line, value: claim.claim_value})

FOR key, entries IN claim_index:
  unique_values = set(entry.value for entry in entries)
  IF len(unique_values) > 1:
    CREATE finding(type=CROSS_DOC_*_CONFLICT, severity=HIGH,
      location=entries[0].doc + ":" + entries[0].line,
      issue="'" + key + "' stated as '" + val1 + "' in " + doc1 + " but '" + val2 + "' in " + doc2)

Phase 6: Score & Report

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/references/audit_scoring.md.

Calculate score using penalty formula. Write report.

Audit Categories (for Checks table)

IDCheckWhat It Covers
path_claimsFile/Directory PathsAll path references verified against filesystem
version_claimsVersion NumbersPackage, tool, image versions against manifests
count_claimsCounts & StatisticsNumeric assertions against actual counts
endpoint_claimsAPI EndpointsRoute definitions against controllers/routers
config_claimsConfig & Env VarsEnvironment variables, config keys against source
command_claimsCLI CommandsScripts, commands against package.json/Makefile
entity_claimsCode Entity NamesFunctions, classes against source definitions
line_ref_claimsLine Number Referencesfile:line against actual file content
cross_docCross-Document ConsistencySame facts across documents agree

Severity Mapping

Issue TypeSeverityRationale
PATH_NOT_FOUND (critical file: AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, runbook, api_spec)CRITICALSetup/onboarding fails
PATH_NOT_FOUND (other docs)HIGHMisleading reference
VERSION_MISMATCH (major version)HIGHFundamentally wrong
VERSION_MISMATCH (minor/patch)MEDIUMCosmetic drift
COUNT_MISMATCHMEDIUMMisleading metric
ENDPOINT_NOT_FOUNDHIGHAPI consumers affected
CONFIG_NOT_FOUNDHIGHDeployment breaks
COMMAND_NOT_FOUNDHIGHSetup/CI breaks
ENTITY_NOT_FOUNDMEDIUMConfusion
LINE_MISMATCHLOWMinor inaccuracy
INFRA_MISMATCHHIGHDocker/deployment affected
CROSS_DOC_*_CONFLICTHIGHTrust erosion, contradictory docs

Output Format

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md.

Write JSON summary per shared/references/audit_summary_contract.md. In managed mode the caller passes both runId and summaryArtifactPath; in standalone mode the worker generates its own run-scoped artifact path per shared contract.

Write report to {output_dir}/ln-614--global.md with category: "Fact Accuracy" and checks: path_claims, version_claims, count_claims, endpoint_claims, config_claims, command_claims, entity_claims, line_ref_claims, cross_doc.

Return summary per shared/references/audit_summary_contract.md.

When summaryArtifactPath is absent, write the standalone runtime summary under .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/evaluation-worker/{worker}--{identifier}.json and optionally echo the same summary in structured output.

Report written: .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/audit-report/ln-614--global.md
Score: X.X/10 | Issues: N (C:N H:N M:N L:N)

Critical Rules

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • Do not auto-fix: Report violations only; coordinator aggregates for user
  • Code is truth: When docs contradict code, document is wrong (unless code is a bug)
  • Evidence required: Every finding includes verification command used and result
  • No false positives: Better to miss an issue than report incorrectly. When uncertain, classify as LOW with note
  • Location precision: Always include file:line for programmatic navigation
  • Broad scope: Scan ALL.md files -- do not skip docs/reference/, tests/, or task docs
  • Targeted depth: Spend the deepest verification effort on canonical and high-claim docs first
  • Cross-doc matters: Contradictions between documents erode trust more than single-doc errors
  • Batch efficiently: Extract all claims first, then verify in batches by type (all paths together, all versions together)
  • Shared placeholder policy: Respect allowlisted setup placeholders from docs_quality_rules.json; do not escalate them in task setup docs
  • Use hex-graph only for semantic ambiguity: For code entities and references, prefer graph queries over repeated grep only when direct manifest/file checks leave symbol identity or reference resolution ambiguous

Definition of Done

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • contextStore parsed successfully (including output_dir)
  • All .md files discovered (broad scope)
  • Claims extracted across 9 types
  • Each claim verified against codebase with evidence
  • Cross-document consistency checked
  • False positives filtered via Layer 2 reasoning
  • Score calculated using penalty algorithm
  • Report written to {output_dir}/ln-614--global.md (atomic single Write call)
  • Summary written per contract

Reference Files

  • Audit output schema: shared/references/audit_output_schema.md
  • Detection methodology: shared/references/two_layer_detection.md
  • Claim extraction rules: references/claim_extraction_rules.md

Version: 1.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-03-06

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

38.05%
按下载量换算461

Claude

31.72%
按下载量换算384

Cursor

17.83%
按下载量换算216

Gemini CLI

10.08%
按下载量换算122

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

可疑

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills