is-it-true

Conduct critical analysis of viewpoints, factual statements, or web content using the critical thinking framework from "Asking the Right Questions". Use when...

Security Scan

The skill is internally coherent: it is an instruction-only critical‑analysis/fact‑checking framework that requires no credentials or installs and its runtime instructions align with its stated purpose, with only minor metadata/typo inconsistencies to fix.

Purpose & Capability

The skill's name/description (critical analysis based on 'Asking the Right Questions') matches the SKILL.md content and the reference material; it legitimately needs no binaries, env vars, or installs. Minor inconsistency: SKILL.md frontmatter has a typo ('name: is-it-ture') that doesn't match the package/registry name ('is-it-true'), which should be corrected but does not indicate malicious intent.

Instruction Scope

SKILL.md instructs the agent to perform structured critical analysis and to perform multi-source cross-validation (e.g., use search engines and find 3+ reliable sources). Those instructions stay within the stated purpose and do not ask the agent to read unrelated system files, export secrets, or contact unexpected endpoints. The guidance to 'use search engines' is broad but appropriate for fact-checking; ensure the agent's browsing tools are configured and constrained as desired.

Install Mechanism

No install spec is provided (instruction-only), which is lowest risk. The included scripts/package_skill.py is a harmless packaging helper (validates presence of files and zips the skill while skipping scripts directory) and does not perform network downloads or code execution beyond local packaging.

Credentials

The skill declares no required environment variables, credentials, or config paths. The runtime instructions do not reference secrets or external credentials. This is proportionate for a fact‑checking/analysis skill.

Persistence & Privilege

The skill does not request 'always: true' or other elevated persistent privileges. Default autonomous invocation is allowed by platform defaults but is not combined with any broad credential access here.

Assessment

This skill appears to be what it claims: a critical‑thinking / fact‑checking instruction set that needs no credentials or installs. Before installing: (1) Fix the metadata typo (SKILL.md frontmatter 'is-it-ture' → 'is-it-true') to avoid packaging/name confusion. (2) Confirm the agent has an approved browsing/search tool if you expect live web verification, and be aware that the skill's instructions ask the agent to perform multi-source web checks (so private or sensitive text you submit could be queried or processed depending on your agent's browsing configuration). (3) Review any outputs the agent will produce for confidentiality if you feed in sensitive documents. Otherwise there are no code-level or credential red flags.

Critical Analysis Skill (Is-It-Ture)

A comprehensive framework for systematic dialectical examination of viewpoints, factual statements, or web content, based on the critical thinking methodology of "Asking the Right Questions" by Browne and Keeley.

Core Analysis Process

Step 1: Determine Analysis Type

Classify the input into one of the following types:

Type	Characteristics	Analysis Focus
Factual Statement	Verifiable objective claims involving data, research, statistics, etc.	Authenticity, scientific basis, evidence support
Opinion-based Statement	Contains value judgments, opinions, or suggestions	Thesis, conclusion, argument, evidence, assumptions
Web/Article Content	Mixed content combining facts and opinions	Separate facts from opinions, then analyze each

Step 2: Factual Statement Verification Framework

For each factual statement, systematically verify the following dimensions:

2.1 Source Tracing

• Original Source: Where did this data/conclusion originate?
• Authority: Does the source have professional credentials (academic journals, government agencies, renowned research institutions)?
• Timeliness: Is the information outdated? Are there more recent studies or data?

2.2 Multi-Source Cross-Validation (Mandatory Step)

Multi-source cross-validation must be performed for ALL types of input (factual statements, opinion-based statements, web content):

2.2.1 Verification Strategies

Verification Method	Action
Direct Search Verification	Use search engines to find reliable sources for original data/research
Cross-Validation	Verify the same fact through 3+ different reliable sources
Reverse Verification	Search whether the information has been denied by official/authoritative institutions
Deep Tracing	Trace the information dissemination chain to find the original source

2.2.2 Source Reliability Ratings

Grade	Type	Description
A+	Government official data, prestigious academic journals, peer-reviewed research	Highest credibility
A	Reports from renowned institutions (WHO, World Bank, etc.), verified mainstream media reports	Highly credible
B+	Professional media, industry association reports, content with clear source citations	Basically credible
B	General media reports, personal blogs without clear sources	Requires cross-validation
C	Social media, forum posts, content with untraceable sources	Suspicious
D	Anonymous posts, marketing content, confirmed misinformation	Not credible

2.2.3 Information Source Type Identification

Type	Characteristics	Risk Level
Misinformation	Content contradicts established facts, no reliable source support	High
Marketing Copy	Commercial purpose, exaggeration or out-of-context presentation	High
Unverifiable Private Information	No verifiable source, subjective statements presented as objective facts	Medium-High
Misleading Information	Partially true but deliberately misleading	High
Outdated Information	Previously correct data/conclusions that are now obsolete	Medium

2.2.4 Cross-Validation Checklist

• Was the original source found? What is the original source?
• Are there 3+ independent reliable sources supporting this information?
• Are there any reliable sources that contradict this?
• Has this information been denied or corrected by authoritative institutions?
• Does the information come from known misinformation sources?
• Is there any out-of-context or selective quoting?
• Have the data/statistics been deliberately distorted (scale, base, comparison method)?

2.2.5 Information Tracing Path

Original Input
    ↓
Is a specific source mentioned? (research/report/institution/person)
    ├─ Yes → Trace that source → Verify source reliability → Find original data
    └─ No → Multi-keyword search → Attempt to find reliable sources
              ↓
        Reliable source found?
            ├─ Yes → Compare original statement with original information
            └─ No → Mark as "source unknown" → Lower credibility rating

2.3 Scientific Principle Verification

• Consistency with Known Scientific Principles: Does the statement align with established scientific theories?
• Mechanism Explanation: Can it explain the underlying causal mechanism?
• Boundary Conditions: What are the applicable conditions and scope of this conclusion?

2.4 Evidence Quality Assessment

• Direct Evidence: Is there direct experimental data, statistical data, or research results supporting it?
• Indirect Evidence: Is the inference chain rigorous?
• Sample Quality: Is the research sample representative? Is the sample size sufficient?
• Research Design: Is the research methodology scientific? Are there design flaws?

2.5 Logical Consistency

• Internal Consistency: Are there internal contradictions within the statement?
• External Consistency: Does it align with other reliable evidence?
• Causation vs. Correlation: Has causation been confused with correlation?

Step 3: Opinion-Based Statement Analysis Framework

Deconstruct opinion-based statements into their components for systematic analysis, while performing multi-source cross-validation on any factual content involved:

3.1 Thesis Identification

• Core Question: What question is the author trying to answer?
• Thesis Type: Descriptive (what is) or Prescriptive (what should be)?

3.2 Conclusion Extraction

• Main Conclusion: What is the author's core claim?
• Sub-conclusions: What specific points support the main conclusion?
• Conclusion Priority: Which are main points and which are supporting arguments?

3.3 Argument Structure Analysis

Argument = Conclusion + Reasons + Evidence + Hidden Assumptions

• Reasons: What reasons does the author use to support the conclusion?
• Evidence Types:
  • Personal experience/cases
  • Unofficial expert opinions
  • Eyewitness testimony
  • Typical cases
  • Quoted authorities/experts
  • Personal observation
  • Research results/statistical data
  • Analogies
  • Presumed premises
• Evidence Quality: How strong a conclusion can this type of evidence support?

3.4 Assumption Identification

Explicit Assumptions (clearly stated by the author):

• What are the author's preconditions?

Implicit Assumptions (unstated but necessary):

• Value Assumption: What does the author consider more important? (efficiency vs. fairness, individual vs. collective, etc.)
• Descriptive Assumption: What does the author believe about how the world works?

Questions for Examining Assumptions:

• Is this assumption true/correct?
• If the assumption is false, does the conclusion still hold?
• Does this assumption conflict with reader or societal consensus?

3.5 Position Analysis

• Author's Position: From what standpoint is the author speaking?
• Beneficiary: Who benefits from this viewpoint?
• Conflict of Interest: Is there obvious interest-driven motivation?
• Reader's Position: Is the reader automatically placed in a certain position?

Step 4: Common Fallacy Identification

Examine arguments in opinion-based statements for logical fallacies:

Fallacy Type	Description	Verification Question
Ad Hominem	Attacking the person rather than the argument	Is it questioning the person rather than the argument?
Straw Man	Distorting the opposing view	Is it refuting a point the opponent didn't make?
Slippery Slope	Unwarranted chain inference	Is there sufficient evidence for each step?
Appeal to Authority	Using authority instead of argument	Is the authority an expert in this field? Is the issue within their expertise?
Appeal to Emotion	Using emotion instead of logic	Is it manipulating reader emotions rather than reasoning?
False Dilemma	Creating a false either/or situation	Are middle-ground or other possibilities ignored?
Equivocation	Changing key term definitions	Have key concepts changed during argumentation?
Circular Reasoning	Using the conclusion to prove the premise	Are the reasons merely restatements of the conclusion?
Hasty Generalization	Concluding from insufficient samples	Is the sample sufficient to represent the whole?
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc	Assuming sequence equals causation	Is there another explanation?

Step 5: Web/Article Content Processing

For web content, additionally perform the following steps:

5.1 Source Reliability Assessment

• Website Reputation: What is the nature of the website? (government/academic/commercial/personal blog)
• Author Information: Is author information provided? What is the author's professional background?
• Citations: Are reliable sources cited?
• Update Date: Is the information current?

5.2 Content Structure Analysis

• Fact vs. Opinion Separation: Distinguish between objective facts and subjective opinions
• Contextual Completeness: Is it taken out of context? Is important background missing?
• Presentation Method: Is the data presentation misleading (truncated scales, sample selection, etc.)?

5.3 Source Cross-Validation (Web-Specific)

Web content cross-validation requires special attention to:

Verification Item	Action
Domain Verification	Check if it's a spoofed/phishing website
Publication Time Verification	Find the original publication date and subsequent update records
Content Consistency Verification	Compare web snapshots to check for content tampering
Citation Source Tracing	Trace all external links cited in the webpage
Reverse Image Search	Perform reverse image search to verify if images have been misappropriated
Social Media Cross-Validation	Search whether this content was spread on social media and if there was subsequent debunking

Step 6: Comprehensive Assessment

Based on the above analysis, provide a structured assessment conclusion:

Assessment Standards

Grade	Rating	Meaning
Highly Credible	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐	Sufficient reliable evidence, consistent with scientific principles, rigorous logic
Basically Credible	⭐⭐⭐⭐	Evidence basically sufficient, minor doubts may exist
Pending Verification	⭐⭐⭐	Insufficient evidence, more information needed
Questionable	⭐⭐	Obvious logical problems or insufficient evidence
Not Credible	⭐	Serious errors, misinformation, or malicious misleading

Assessment Report Structure

## Comprehensive Assessment Report

### Verdict
[Credibility rating and brief conclusion]

### Key Findings
1. [Primary finding 1]
2. [Primary finding 2]
3. [Primary finding 3]

### Multi-Source Cross-Validation Results
- Original Source Rating: [A+/A/B+/B/C/D]
- Cross-Validation Source Count: [X independent reliable sources]
- Verification Results:
  - Supported by: [X sources]
  - Contradicted by: [X sources]
  - No reliable source found: [description]
- Information Type Identification: [Misinformation/Marketing Copy/Unverifiable Private Information/Misleading Information/Outdated Information/Normal]

### Evidence Assessment
- Evidence Source: [description]
- Evidence Quality: [assessment]
- Evidence Gap: [existing deficiencies]

### Argumentation Quality
- Logical Structure: [assessment]
- Assumption Reasonableness: [assessment]
- Potential Fallacies: [identified issues]

### Position and Interest Analysis
- Author's Position: [identified]
- Potential Bias: [identified]
- Reader Impact: [analysis]

### Reasoning Process Supporting Conclusion
[detailed reasoning chain]

### Usage Recommendations
[How to use this information, any precautions]

Usage Examples

Example 1: Factual Statement Verification

Input: "A study shows that drinking coffee every day can extend lifespan."

Analysis Output:

### Analysis Type: Factual Statement

### Source Tracing
- Research Source: [tracing results]
- Authority: [assessment]
- Sample Size and Research Design: [analysis]

### Scientific Principle Verification
- Mechanism Explanation: [whether it exists]
- Causation vs. Correlation: [distinction result]

### Evidence Assessment
- Direct Evidence: [assessment]
- Confounding Variables: [whether considered]
- Reproducibility: [whether other research supports/contradicts]

### Comprehensive Assessment
[verdict and reasoning]

Example 2: Opinion-Based Statement Verification

Input: "We should completely ban artificial intelligence because it will replace human jobs."

Analysis Output:

### Analysis Type: Opinion-based Statement

### Thesis Identification
- Core Question: Should AI be banned?
- Thesis Type: Prescriptive

### Conclusion Extraction
- Main Conclusion: AI should be completely banned
- Implicit Premise: The harm of AI replacing jobs outweighs its benefits

### Argumentation Structure
- Reason: AI will replace human jobs
- Evidence: [missing argumentation]
- Assumptions: Work is the main value of life; banning AI won't cause other problems

### Fallacy Identification
- Slippery Slope: Assuming replacement will lead to complete replacement
- False Dilemma: Ignoring the possibility of "regulated development"
- Hasty Generalization: Using partial replacement cases to generalize the whole

### Comprehensive Assessment
[verdict]

Important Notes

1. Maintain Objectivity: Do not take sides during analysis; let evidence speak
2. Distinguish Certainty from Speculation: Clearly mark what is certain vs. what is speculation
3. Acknowledge Uncertainty: Be transparent about problems that cannot be determined rather than forcing conclusions
4. Focus on Evidence Quality: Not all evidence has equal value
5. Recognize Timeliness: Information may change over time; dynamic evaluation is needed
6. Multi-perspective Examination: Multiple reasonable perspectives may exist for the same issue
7. Prioritize Multi-Source Validation: For all input, multi-source cross-validation MUST be performed first; do not rely solely on a single source
8. Be Vigilant Against Source-less Information: For information that cannot be traced to reliable sources, credibility ratings must be lowered

Output Standards

The final output MUST contain ALL of the following sections:

1. Analysis Type Determination: Clearly state whether it is factual or opinion-based
2. Multi-Source Cross-Validation (Mandatory):
   • Original source rating
   • Cross-validation results (supported/contradicted/not found)
   • Information type identification
3. Systematic Verification: Analyze item by item according to the above framework
4. Verdict: Clear credibility rating (⭐-⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐)
5. Reasoning Process: Complete reasoning chain supporting the conclusion
6. Usage Recommendations: How to correctly use this information

Credibility Downgrade Triggers

The following situations MUST trigger credibility rating downgrade:

Trigger Condition	Downgrade Magnitude
Original source cannot be found	At least 1 grade lower
No reliable source for cross-validation	At least 2 grades lower
Contradicting information found	At least 1 grade lower
Identified as misinformation/marketing/misleading	Directly mark as not credible
Information from anonymous/private sources	At least 2 grades lower