Back to Details

factchk

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese
Check what's asserted as real against reality — in both directions — before it ships.
在发布前，从正反两个方向对照现实验证所有被断言为真实的内容。

Goal

目标

The author's "plausible / absurd / novel" is the least reliable line in any artifact. Human priors fail both ways — they exclude the real (desert frogs exist) and normalize the impossible (weightless crates). 
factchk
scans claims presented as reality-grounded, verifies each against external sources in both directions, and fixes or flags. Its scope is a claim about the world — whether what's asserted as real is real — not the soundness of a validation or the survival of a whole plan.
在任何成果物中，作者凭直觉判定的“看似合理/荒谬/新颖”都是最不可靠的内容。人类的先验认知会在两个方向出错——既会排除真实存在的事物（比如沙漠蛙确实存在），也会将不可能的事物视为常态（比如无重量的箱子）。
factchk
会扫描所有基于现实的声明，从正反两个方向对照外部来源逐一验证，然后修正错误或标记存疑内容。它的适用范围是关于现实世界的声明——即被断言为真实的内容是否属实——而非验证逻辑的合理性或整个计划的可行性。

Workflow

工作流程

  1. Scan for reality-grounded assertions — anything leaning on "this is plausible / realistic / absurd / novel / impossible because X," including the claim you are about to write, not only those already on the page.
  2. Verify each against external sources (web search, open references) in both directions: could the "absurd" be real? could the "obvious" or "novel" be false or long-established? If you cannot reach a source, flag — never assert from intuition.
  3. Fix or flag: a mechanically-clear error (a wrong date, a misattributed source, a falsified number) → correct it with a cited source; a judgment call (a contested or interpretive claim) → surface it, don't silently rewrite.
  4. Report each claim, its verdict, the source, and — for a failed claim — which direction it failed.
  1. 扫描基于现实的断言——任何以“因为X，所以这看似合理/真实/荒谬/新颖/不可能”为依据的内容，包括你即将撰写的声明，而不仅仅是已写在页面上的内容。
  2. 从正反两个方向对照外部来源（网络搜索、公开参考资料）逐一验证：所谓“荒谬”的内容是否真实存在？所谓“显而易见”或“新颖”的内容是否为假或早已确立？如果无法找到来源，标记存疑——绝不要凭直觉断言。
  3. 修正或标记：对于明确的机械错误（错误日期、来源误标、虚假数据）→ 引用来源进行修正；对于需要判断的内容（存在争议或需要解读的声明）→ 明确指出，不要悄悄改写。
  4. 报告每个声明、验证结果、来源，以及（对于验证失败的声明）它在哪个方向出错。

Rules

规则

  • Target claims asserted as reality-grounded, never deliberate fiction ("in our world, boxes float" is a declared choice). When it is unclear whether a claim is an in-world choice or a real-world assertion, flag, don't fix — the hardest call in the skill.
  • Flagging only the unrealistic catches half the errors.
  • The trigger is metacognition, not knowledge: you can't know every domain, so the moment you are about to assert a checkable fact from a feeling, verify it instead of trusting the feeling.
  • A pass that finds nothing changes nothing.
  • 针对被断言为基于现实的声明，绝不处理刻意虚构的内容（比如“在我们的设定中，箱子会漂浮”是明确的设定选择）。当无法判断某声明是设定选择还是现实断言时，标记存疑，不要修正——这是本技能中最难的判断。
  • 仅标记不切实际的内容只会漏掉一半错误。
  • 触发条件是元认知，而非已有知识：你不可能了解所有领域，因此当你准备凭直觉断言一个可核查的事实时，请选择验证而非相信直觉。
  • 如果扫描后未发现任何问题，则不做任何修改。

Verification

验证要求

Before finishing: every verdict traces to a citable external source, not a reworded prior intuition — and the report reads as fixes-vs-flags, not restated intuitions.
完成前需确保：所有验证结果都能追溯到可引用的外部来源，而非重新表述的先验直觉——且报告应清晰区分修正内容与标记内容，而非重复直觉判断。