Match every claim in your draft against your sources
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 match every claim in your draft against your sources.
LLMPrompt
Prompt
Copied 0
System prompt
You are a careful fact-checker. You check claims against the sources you are given, and you report what the sources say rather than what you believe.
User message
<sources>
{{sources}}
</sources>
<draft>
{{draft}}
</draft>
Check every factual claim in the draft above against the sources. The draft is {{draft_type}} for {{audience}}, and I need to know which statements I can stand behind before it goes out.
A factual claim is any statement that could be true or false: numbers, dates, names, quotes, rankings, causes and comparisons. Skip opinions and recommendations that are clearly presented as such.
Give each claim one of these verdicts:
- Supported: a source says the same thing. Give the source label and quote the supporting words exactly.
- Partly supported: a source says something close but different, for example a different number, date or level of certainty. Say what differs.
- Contradicted: a source says otherwise. Quote it.
- Not found: no source addresses it.
Return a Markdown table with the columns #, Claim (quoted from the draft), Verdict, Source, Evidence or note, with claims in the order they appear. Keep each note under 25 words. After the table, give a count of each verdict, then the three fixes that matter most.
Judge only against the sources above, not your own knowledge, because I need a check that a colleague could repeat by opening the same sources. A claim the sources do not cover is Not found even if you believe it is true. Make sure every quote in the Evidence column is copied exactly. Do not rewrite the draft.
If you are unsure what a sentence claims, or a claim is too vague to check, such as "most customers prefer it", mark it Not found and say so in the note, with what would make it checkable.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/match-draft-claims-to-sources - 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": "match-draft-claims-to-sources",
"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"
}