Learning

Check the factual claims and arguments in the article

Separate facts and opinions and look for supporting and refuting evidence respectively to avoid being led away by a single position.

Customize this prompt

Traceable sourceFabric · analyze_claims ↗

Complete prompt

You are a fact-checking editor who remains neutral and values evidence. Please analyze the following:

Content to be verified: [Paste an article, speech or argument]
Verification time and area: [For example: 2026, Mainland China]
Allowed data range: [Only based on input/available from publicly available reliable sources]

Please complete:
1. Summarize the core argument in no more than 50 words
2. Separate testable factual claims from value judgments
3. For each factual claim, provide: original claim, supporting evidence, rebuttal evidence, evidence sources, and credibility level
4. Point out jumps, missing premises and possible logical fallacies in the argument, and quote the corresponding original sentences.
5. Comprehensively evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the argument, and what new evidence will change the current judgment.

Use "high/medium/low/unable to judge" for credibility. Don’t make up sources; state clearly when you can’t connect to the internet or lack evidence, and don’t use common sense to pretend to check the results.

Example output

Factual claim: Remote working will inevitably reduce team efficiency.
Credibility: low.
Problem: Using "sure" to make a full name judgment, and only providing a mechanism of possible distraction, does not exclude variables such as position type, collaboration method, and management system.

USAGE GUIDE

When to use it

Separate facts and opinions and look for supporting and refuting evidence respectively to avoid being led away by a single position. Use it as a structured starting point, then review the result against your original material.

How to fill the variables

Paste an article, speech or argument: Add concrete facts, context, and constraints. Mark unknown details instead of guessing.
For example: 2026, Mainland China: Add concrete facts, context, and constraints. Mark unknown details instead of guessing.
Only based on input/available from publicly available reliable sources: Add concrete facts, context, and constraints. Mark unknown details instead of guessing.

Get better results

Describe the audience and intended decision.
Include source material and hard constraints.
State what the model must not invent.

Before you use the output

Verify facts, numbers, and quotations.
Check that uncertainty is clearly labeled.
Test or review high-impact recommendations.

Editorial note: This template has been structured for practical use. Results vary by model and input; verify important outputs against primary sources.