Use this skill when reviewing AI outputs for factual accuracy or grounding failures. Triggers include: "check this for hallucinations", "is this output grounded", "verify this AI response", "fact-check the model output", "does this match the source", or any request to audit LLM outputs for fabricated or unsupported claims.
Scanned 9/19/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add satishkc7/claude-config --skill hallucination-checker --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Hallucination Checker?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/satishkc7-hallucination-checker)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: hallucination-checker
description: Use this skill when reviewing AI outputs for factual accuracy or grounding failures. Triggers include: "check this for hallucinations", "is this output grounded", "verify this AI response", "fact-check the model output", "does this match the source", or any request to audit LLM outputs for fabricated or unsupported claims.
---
# Hallucination Checker Skill
## Hallucination Types
1. Factual Fabrication - states something simply false
2. Citation Fabrication - invents papers, URLs, quotes, statistics
3. Conflation - merges two real things into one incorrect thing
4. Intrinsic Inconsistency - contradicts itself within one response
5. Grounding Failure (RAG) - claims not supported by retrieved context
6. Confident Uncertainty - states unknown things with false confidence
## Check Workflow
### Step 1: Claim Extraction
Break the output into atomic claims:
Output: "Claude 3 Opus was released in March 2024 and has a 200K context window."
Claims:
1. Claude 3 Opus was released in March 2024
2. Claude 3 Opus has a 200K context window
### Step 2: Classify Each Claim
- SUPPORTED - directly stated in source/context
- INFERRED - logically follows from source (flag for review)
- UNSUPPORTED - not in source, not verifiable
- CONTRADICTED - conflicts with source or known facts
### Step 3: Risk Score Each Issue
Critical - factually wrong + stated confidently + consequential
Medium - unsupported but plausible, or wrong but inconsequential
Low - minor inference, hedged language used
### Step 4: Grounding Score (RAG outputs)
Grounding Score = Grounded Claims / Total Claims * 100%
>90% = Acceptable | 70-90% = Review recommended | <70% = Reject / regenerate
## Hallucination-Resistant Prompt Additions
- "Always cite the specific source passage supporting your claim."
- "If the answer is not in the provided context, say: I don't have that information."
- "Do not invent statistics, citations, URLs, or quotes."
- Use hedging: "Based on the provided context..." / "The document suggests..."
## Report Format
## Overall Assessment
Total claims: [N] | Grounded: [N] ([%]) | Unsupported: [N] ([%]) | Score: [%] PASS/FAIL
## Critical Issues
| Claim | Type | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
## Recommendations
- [ ] Add citation requirement to system prompt
- [ ] Add "I don't know" escape hatch
- [ ] Reduce chunk size to improve retrieval precision
- [ ] Add output validation before returning to user
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!