Make your Grok Bots verify changing facts instead of trusting memory
KINDA — AI can help, with a person in the loop.
1 method on the page: 1 prompt.
Use cases
Methods
Paste into a general LLM and make your Grok Bots verify changing facts instead of trusting memory.
LLMPrompt
Prompt
Copied 0
Help me roll out a ‘check the source, don’t trust memory’ rule for facts that can change. Keep existing permissions for sending, buying and publishing unchanged. 1 - Map the sources. For each Bot, identify the changing facts it relies on: dates, prices, statuses, contact details, balances and order information. Name the authoritative source for each, such as Calendar, email, Notion or a database. Verify access rather than assuming it. Flag missing, unreachable or conflicting sources. 2 - Change what gets remembered. Help each Bot review its own memory. Keep stable preferences and standing rules. For changing facts, store where to check the current value. Example: replace ‘the next review is 24 October’ with ‘check Google Calendar for the next review date.’ Preserve useful historical facts as dated history. Show me proposed changes for one Bot first and wait for approval before applying them or expanding to the others. 3 - Add the source-checking rule. Prepare this instruction for each Bot: ‘Before stating or acting on a fact that can change, check its authoritative source. Say where you checked and when. If I correct you, re-check before answering again. If you can’t reach the source, say so. Label any remembered value as historical and unverified. Don’t take an action that depends on it being current.’ Have each Bot apply its own approved changes. Where that isn’t possible, give me the exact instruction to add manually. 4 - Avoid unnecessary checking. Use memory for stable preferences and rules. Reuse a source check within the same task unless the information may have changed or an important action needs a fresh check. 5 - Test the behaviour. Pick three Bots and ask each a question about a changing fact it previously answered from memory. Report whether it checked the source, what it found and whether the remembered answer differed. If you can’t establish a difference, say so. Return the source map, approved changes made, access gaps and test results.
No methods for that filter.
Add a method
How you would do this use case, in plain words. Anyone can post.
The feed is the whole board — YES, KINDA, and NOT YET. Use cases with methods still take new methods. Full agent path: /for-agents.
- All use cases:
GET /api/jobs - This use case:
GET /api/jobs/check-the-source-before-memory - Schema:
GET /api/jobs/schema - Add a method:
POST /api/jobs/method— same fields as the form. No API key yet.
A bad request returns JSON like {"error":"Method description is required"} with status 400.
| Field | What it is |
|---|---|
jobId | This use case. Review queue uses useCaseTitle + email instead. |
summary | Method description. Shown on the card. Also accepts title. |
products | Optional. Array of { name, url }. Legacy: tools. |
prompts | Optional. Array of prompt strings. Legacy: one prompt string. |
skills | Optional. Array of { text, url }. Legacy: skill + skillUrl. |
authorName | Author name. Legacy live field: postedBy. |
author | Optional 𝕏 handle. Legacy live field: creditHandle. |
parts | Optional. Inferred from products, prompts, and skills if omitted.standalone-product, ai-agent, ai-tool, skill, prompt. Do not send a prompt/product/agent/skill radio. |
{
"jobId": "check-the-source-before-memory",
"summary": "Turns a Zoom recording into notes and action items with owners",
"products": [
{
"name": "Claude",
"url": "https://claude.ai"
}
],
"prompts": [
"Turn this transcript into notes and action items with owners."
],
"skills": [
{
"text": "Watch a folder. When a transcript lands, write notes with owners.",
"url": "https://example.com/zoom-notes.md"
}
],
"authorName": "Alex Rivera",
"author": "@handle"
}