Verify a doubtful answer
6 min read
Updated
Verify a doubtful answer
Check claims and citations before relying on your agent’s answer.
Direct answer
Split the answer into checkable claims. Open their sources, find the supporting passage and check date, scope and exceptions. When evidence is missing, retain “unverified” and pause the decision that depends on it. Keep a record of corrections and remaining unknowns so the decision can be checked.
Glossary
Terms explained here
Open a term for a short definition, then continue to its full sourced entry if useful.
01
Identify what needs evidence
A hallucination here is generated information presented as factual when it is false or inconsistent with the supplied material. Confident wording or a well-formatted citation proves nothing. A creative proposal clearly labeled fictional is not, by itself, a hallucination.
Separate fact, calculation, interpretation and recommendation. “The contract ends on 30 June” needs a passage; “the total is 480” needs inputs and a calculation; “this supplier seems preferable” needs criteria and remains a judgment.
02
Create one line per useful claim
Start with claims that could change your decision. Record the exact claim, expected source, date or version, passage found, verdict and next action. A long answer is no reason to accept everything as a block.
Example: “The plan allows five projects.” The official pricing page may concern only an old plan. Record “not confirmed for my plan” instead of copying the number. Counterexample: asking “are you sure?” and accepting the same number repeated without new evidence.
03
Open and check the source
Open the cited link; check the author, title, date and full document. Find the relevant passage and read its surrounding conditions. A real page on the same topic may not support the claim. An inaccessible source remains inaccessible: request a usable document or record the limitation.
Prefer an appropriate primary source: a contract for an agreed obligation, official documentation for a feature, original data for a figure. For an important or disputed claim, cross-check with independent evidence. Two websites repeating the same press release are not two independent confirmations.
04
Decide with an explicit boundary
Classify each claim: supported within the checked scope, contradicted, or unverified. Recalculate operations from source values. If sources disagree, retain the disagreement and seek the applicable version; do not turn a vote among AI responses into evidence.
Pause the dependent decision when an essential source is missing, a conflict remains unresolved, or the consequences require expertise you do not have. Hand the file to an appropriate person with passages and unknowns. Even a sourced answer can contain errors: verification reduces uncertainty without creating a general guarantee.
- Supported: the inspected evidence supports the claim within the examined scope.
- Contradicted: the inspected evidence conflicts with or refutes the claim.
- Unverified: evidence is missing, inaccessible or insufficient to decide.
05
Correct the answer without losing the record
Request a corrected version that retains supported facts, removes contradicted claims and names remaining unknowns. Compare it with your verification rows so that rephrasing does not reintroduce an unsupported date, figure or condition.
Before sharing the answer or deciding, reread the claims on which the action depends. If a source changes, record the check date and verify the affected point again. An editorial correction is not evidence that the action discussed has been performed.
Keep this
Checklist
- 01The corrected version does not reintroduce a removed or unverified claim.
- 02Decision-critical claims are isolated.
- 03Every link was opened and its passage checked.
- 04Date, version and exceptions match the case.
- 05Calculations were repeated where needed.
- 06Unknowns and stop criteria are visible.
Primary sources
Technical claims in this guide connect to first-party specifications and documentation.
- Grounding with Google Search (opens in a new tab)Google · Grounding in search results and links between answer segments and sources, to be checked in the cited document.
- Reduce hallucinations (opens in a new tab)Anthropic · Primary source for technical distinctions; original SkillCodex procedure and examples.
Continue
Related guides and tools
Understand → Recognize → Choose → Compare
Pack for your agent
Pre-written instruction by SkillCodex — your request is neither sent nor used to adapt this text; no content is generated, and copying executes nothing.
Implement correctly
Apply “Verify a doubtful answer” step by step
# Apply the “Verify a doubtful answer” guide in your agent ## Objective Split the answer into checkable claims. Open their sources, find the supporting passage and check date, scope and exceptions. When evidence is missing, retain “unverified” and pause the decision that depends on it. Keep a record of corrections and remaining unknowns so the decision can be checked. ## Prerequisites - Inspect the repository, documentation, and existing conventions. - Confirm the need matches the guide scope: Check claims and citations before relying on your agent’s answer. - Preserve the correct decisions already in place. ## Guide steps - 1. Identify what needs evidence — A hallucination here is generated information presented as factual when it is false or inconsistent with the supplied material. Confident wording or a well-formatted citation proves nothing. A creative proposal clearly labeled fictional is not, by itself, a hallucination. - 2. Create one line per useful claim — Start with claims that could change your decision. Record the exact claim, expected source, date or version, passage found, verdict and next action. A long answer is no reason to accept everything as a block. - 3. Open and check the source — Open the cited link; check the author, title, date and full document. Find the relevant passage and read its surrounding conditions. A real page on the same topic may not support the claim. An inaccessible source remains inaccessible: request a usable document or record the limitation. - 4. Decide with an explicit boundary — Classify each claim: supported within the checked scope, contradicted, or unverified. Recalculate operations from source values. If sources disagree, retain the disagreement and seek the applicable version; do not turn a vote among AI responses into evidence. - 5. Correct the answer without losing the record — Request a corrected version that retains supported facts, removes contradicted claims and names remaining unknowns. Compare it with your verification rows so that rephrasing does not reintroduce an unsupported date, figure or condition. ## Acceptance criteria — Checklist - The corrected version does not reintroduce a removed or unverified claim. - Decision-critical claims are isolated. - Every link was opened and its passage checked. - Date, version and exceptions match the case. - Calculations were repeated where needed. - Unknowns and stop criteria are visible. ## Guardrails - Show the proposed changes before any external action. - Do not publish, send, delete, pay for, or change remote state without explicit authorization. - Preserve unrelated changes and stop if the scope becomes ambiguous. ## Output format - Outcome or verdict. - Files or actions involved. - Checks run and observable evidence. - Remaining blockers or limitations.
- Requires · The real project context: repository, documentation, and existing constraints
Why it works
- The steps come from a published, sourced guide, not improvisation.
- The checklist turns advice into verifiable criteria.
- The declared scope keeps the guide within its evidence.
Try next
Anchor the guide in the project
# Anchor the guide in the project ## Objective Turn the applied steps into durable repository conventions. ## Checks - Link each decision made to the guide step that justifies it. - Add the checklist to the relevant reviews. - Record out-of-scope cases for the neighboring guides. ## Guardrails - Show the proposed changes before any external action. - Do not publish, send, delete, pay for, or change remote state without explicit authorization. - Preserve unrelated changes and stop if the scope becomes ambiguous. ## Output format - Outcome or verdict. - Files or actions involved. - Checks run and observable evidence. - Remaining blockers or limitations.
sha256:768bafc406e3f002f19c5ea1e158f127bf68cf494b4666793b5dac018846e9c4
Diagnose a problem
Diagnose a “Verify a doubtful answer” guide gap
# Diagnose a failed application of the “Verify a doubtful answer” guide ## Observed symptom [DESCRIBE THE SYMPTOM HERE] ## Observable checks - Replay the steps in order and note the first one that diverges: - 1. Identify what needs evidence — A hallucination here is generated information presented as factual when it is false or inconsistent with the supplied material. Confident wording or a well-formatted citation proves nothing. A creative proposal clearly labeled fictional is not, by itself, a hallucination. - 2. Create one line per useful claim — Start with claims that could change your decision. Record the exact claim, expected source, date or version, passage found, verdict and next action. A long answer is no reason to accept everything as a block. - 3. Open and check the source — Open the cited link; check the author, title, date and full document. Find the relevant passage and read its surrounding conditions. A real page on the same topic may not support the claim. An inaccessible source remains inaccessible: request a usable document or record the limitation. - 4. Decide with an explicit boundary — Classify each claim: supported within the checked scope, contradicted, or unverified. Recalculate operations from source values. If sources disagree, retain the disagreement and seek the applicable version; do not turn a vote among AI responses into evidence. - 5. Correct the answer without losing the record — Request a corrected version that retains supported facts, removes contradicted claims and names remaining unknowns. Compare it with your verification rows so that rephrasing does not reintroduce an unsupported date, figure or condition. ## Possible causes - A step was skipped or executed out of order. - The actual need falls outside the guide scope. - A checklist criterion was never verified. ## Bounded fixes - Redo only the diverging step and what depends on it. - Document the gap if the guide scope does not cover the need. ## Final verification — Checklist - The corrected version does not reintroduce a removed or unverified claim. - Decision-critical claims are isolated. - Every link was opened and its passage checked. - Date, version and exceptions match the case. - Calculations were repeated where needed. - Unknowns and stop criteria are visible. ## Guardrails - Show the proposed changes before any external action. - Do not publish, send, delete, pay for, or change remote state without explicit authorization. - Preserve unrelated changes and stop if the scope becomes ambiguous. ## Output format - Outcome or verdict. - Files or actions involved. - Checks run and observable evidence. - Remaining blockers or limitations.
- Requires · The real project context: repository, documentation, and existing constraints
Why it works
- The diagnosis replays ordered steps instead of searching at random.
- Fixes stay bounded to the first real divergence.
- The checklist serves as a reproducible final verification.
Try next
Prevent the next drift
# Prevent the next drift ## Objective Turn the first diverging step into an explicit project check. ## Checks - Add a focused check on the step that diverged. - Verify the checklist on a second real case. - Document the scope limit you hit. ## Guardrails - Show the proposed changes before any external action. - Do not publish, send, delete, pay for, or change remote state without explicit authorization. - Preserve unrelated changes and stop if the scope becomes ambiguous. ## Output format - Outcome or verdict. - Files or actions involved. - Checks run and observable evidence. - Remaining blockers or limitations.
sha256:00580d725ad4e5f104faf6a5203a69eea8fd9b80a71dfc380fadf427d4164d63
Pack digest: sha256:3df289d56edb296d516f8f77b0bac2b2ef2b2442534e244af559c0b6f39438f3