Ready-to-use prompt

Check the evidence, not just the statement.

Break a claim into verifiable parts, trace information back to its original source and check dates, numbers and missing context before deciding whether the evidence supports it.

KRIYANO MASTER PROMPTFact-Checking Prompt.
Act as a careful fact-checking researcher and evidence analyst.

TASK:
Evaluate the factual accuracy of the claim or content provided below.

CLAIM / CONTENT TO CHECK:
[Paste the claim, statement, statistic, quote, paragraph or AI-generated answer.]

CONTEXT:
[Explain where the claim appeared and any relevant background.]

SOURCE OF THE CLAIM:
[Website, social media post, article, video, AI response, person, report, etc.]

DATE OF CLAIM:
[Date if known.]

LOCATION / MARKET:
[Country, region or jurisdiction if relevant.]

REASON FOR CHECKING:
[Example: article, business decision, social media post, research, presentation, personal verification.]

AVAILABLE SOURCES:
[Paste any sources or evidence already available.]

FACT-CHECKING REQUIREMENTS:

1. EXTRACT THE CLAIMS
Break the content into individual factual claims that can reasonably be checked.

Separate:
- factual claims
- opinions
- predictions
- interpretations
- recommendations

Do not attempt to fact-check subjective opinions as though they were factual statements.

2. IDENTIFY CHECKABLE ELEMENTS
For each factual claim identify what needs verification.

Examples:
- person
- organization
- event
- date
- number
- statistic
- location
- quote
- law
- scientific finding
- product feature
- price
- historical event

3. CHECK THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Whenever possible, identify the primary or original source.

Examples:
- government database
- legislation
- regulator
- company announcement
- financial filing
- original research paper
- official statistics
- court document
- original interview
- full speech or transcript

Prefer the original source over articles repeating the information.

4. VERIFY WITH INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE
For important claims, look for credible independent confirmation.

Do not treat several websites repeating information from the same original source as independent confirmation.

5. CHECK DATES
Verify:
- publication date
- event date
- data collection period
- effective date
- whether the information is still current

Watch for old information being presented as current.

6. CHECK NUMBERS & STATISTICS
For numerical claims verify:
- original number
- units
- percentage vs percentage-point differences
- sample size
- geographic scope
- time period
- denominator
- calculation method
- whether context has been removed

Recalculate simple derived figures when useful.

7. CHECK QUOTES
For quotations:
- locate the original source when possible
- verify the wording
- check surrounding context
- determine whether the quote has been shortened in a misleading way
- verify who actually said it

Do not invent quotations or missing context.

8. CHECK IMAGES / VIDEO CLAIMS
If a claim relies on visual media, consider:
- original upload
- publication date
- location
- whether the image or video predates the claimed event
- whether the caption accurately describes the content
- whether editing or cropping could change the meaning

Do not claim that media is AI-generated or manipulated without sufficient evidence.

9. CHECK CAUSAL CLAIMS
If the statement says that one thing caused another, determine whether the evidence establishes:
- causation
- correlation
- association only
- no demonstrated relationship

Do not convert correlation into causation.

10. CHECK COMPARISONS
For claims such as:
"largest"
"cheapest"
"best"
"fastest"
"most popular"
"number one"

Identify:
- comparison group
- measurement
- geographic scope
- time period
- evidence source

If these are undefined, flag the claim.

11. CHECK CURRENT INFORMATION
For topics that change frequently, such as:
- prices
- laws
- regulations
- political positions
- company leadership
- product features
- market statistics
- employment data
- exchange rates
- technology

Require current evidence.

12. DETECT MISSING CONTEXT
Look for technically correct statements that may still mislead because important context is missing.

Examples:
- selective time periods
- omitted comparison groups
- cherry-picked statistics
- unusual denominators
- missing qualifications
- misleading headlines

13. IDENTIFY SOURCE PROBLEMS
Check for:
- circular reporting
- anonymous unsupported claims
- citation chains with no original source
- outdated sources
- promotional sources
- fabricated-looking references
- incorrectly attributed studies
- unverifiable statistics

14. HANDLE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE
If credible sources disagree:
- explain the disagreement
- compare source quality
- compare methodology
- compare dates
- identify what remains unresolved

Do not force a definitive verdict when the evidence does not support one.

15. FACT-CHECK VERDICT
Classify each important claim as one of:

VERIFIED
Strong evidence supports the claim as stated.

MOSTLY TRUE
The central claim is supported but requires minor qualification.

MISLEADING
The claim contains factual elements but creates an inaccurate impression because of missing context, wording or comparison.

MOSTLY FALSE
A small part may be correct, but the main claim is contradicted by evidence.

FALSE
Reliable evidence directly contradicts the claim.

UNSUPPORTED
There is not sufficient reliable evidence supporting the claim.

OUTDATED
The claim may previously have been accurate but is no longer current.

UNVERIFIABLE
Available evidence is insufficient to reach a responsible conclusion.

16. CONFIDENCE
For each verdict give:
- High confidence
- Medium confidence
- Low confidence

Explain significant uncertainty.

17. CORRECTION
If a claim is inaccurate or misleading, provide a corrected version using the strongest available evidence.

Do not exaggerate beyond what the evidence establishes.

18. SOURCE TRANSPARENCY
For important findings identify:
- source
- source type
- publication date
- why it is relevant

Prioritize primary and authoritative evidence.

19. FINAL SUMMARY
Summarize:
- overall verdict
- strongest supporting evidence
- strongest contradictory evidence
- missing context
- unresolved questions
- corrected claim if needed

OUTPUT FORMAT:

1. Claim(s) Identified
2. What Needs Verification
3. Evidence Review
4. Source Quality
5. Date / Recency Check
6. Numerical or Statistical Check
7. Context Check
8. Conflicting Evidence
9. Verdict for Each Claim
10. Confidence Level
11. Corrected Version
12. Information Gaps
13. Final Fact-Check Summary

IMPORTANT:
- Never invent evidence, citations, sources, quotes or statistics.
- If you do not have access to current information, say so clearly.
- Do not claim that something has been verified unless appropriate evidence has actually been examined.
- Distinguish absence of evidence from evidence that something is false.
- Prefer original and authoritative sources.
- Use independent corroboration for important claims when appropriate.
- Separate factual accuracy from opinion.
- Clearly identify uncertainty.
- Do not change the strength of a claim beyond what the evidence supports.
Prompt copied to clipboard.
How to use it

Use the prompt effectively.

01

Isolate the exact claim

Fact-checking works best when broad statements are separated into specific claims about dates, numbers, events, people or other verifiable details.

02

Find where the information originated

Trace statistics, quotations and reports back to their primary source instead of relying only on websites or posts repeating them.

03

Check context and recency

A statement can contain a correct number and still be misleading if it uses old data, the wrong comparison group or missing context.

04

Match the verdict to the evidence

Use unsupported or unverifiable when evidence is insufficient instead of automatically labeling a claim false.

Example

Do not turn missing evidence into a false verdict.

Example input

Claim: 'Online sales in this market increased by 300% last year.'

Source: Social media post.

Original source: Not provided.

Purpose: Business market research.

Possible output

Claim identified: Online sales in the specified market supposedly increased by 300% during the previous year.

Verification required: The market definition, geographic area, measurement period, sales metric and original dataset must be identified.

Evidence status: No original source or supporting data has been provided.

Verdict: UNSUPPORTED.

Confidence: High confidence that the claim is currently unsupported; this does not establish that the claim itself is false.

Next step: Locate official statistics, an original industry dataset or another authoritative source covering the same market and period before using the figure.

Improve the result

Fact-check more carefully.

01

Unsupported does not mean false

If reliable evidence cannot be found, the responsible conclusion may simply be that the claim cannot currently be verified.

02

Trace viral statistics backward

Many websites and social posts can repeat the same statistic. Find the earliest identifiable dataset or report before treating repetition as confirmation.

03

Check what the number actually measures

Percentages can sound impressive while hiding a tiny starting value, unusual denominator or narrow time period.