moai-workflow-docs-claim-check

Validates whether documentation claims are supported by supplied evidence using labeled atomic claim assessments.

Updated Aug 29, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/Seung-zedd/secure-file-upload --skill moai-workflow-docs-claim-check-seung-zedd
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: moai-workflow-docs-claim-check
Source: https://github.com/Seung-zedd/secure-file-upload/tree/main/.claude/skills/moai-workflow-docs-claim-check
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/Seung-zedd/secure-file-upload --skill moai-workflow-docs-claim-check-seung-zedd

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve? Public-facing documents like READMEs and release notes often contain claims that are outdated, exaggerated, or unsupported, and manually auditing every statement against project evidence is slow and error-prone. This Skill performs a read-only audit that decomposes document statements into atomic claims and labels each one against the evidence you supply. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Atomic Claim Decomposition: Splits composite sentences (e.g., platform lists, version floors, install steps) into individually checkable claims so no gap hides inside a passing verdict. - Four-Label Decision Tree: Assigns exactly one label per claim — verified, stale-suspected, unsupported (with a reason), or needs-human — using an ordered gate process with tie-break rules. - Strict Read-Only Boundaries: Runs no commands, produces no fixes, and performs no code or security review; it names the exact command a maintainer should run instead. - Use Case: Before publishing a release note claiming "latest release is 3.1.0 with 12 plugins", supply the tag listing and plugin directory as evidence and receive a row-by-row report flagging stale counts and unsupported statements. ## Quick Start Audit the attached README against the supplied evidence files and report which claims are verified, stale, unsupported, or need human verification.

Frequently Asked Questions about moai-workflow-docs-claim-check

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I check if my README claims are accurate?▼

Supply the README plus evidence files such as manifests, CI logs, or directory listings. The skill extracts every checkable statement, splits composite claims into atomic ones, and labels each as verified, stale-suspected, unsupported, or needs-human with named evidence anchors.

What is the difference between stale-suspected and unsupported claims?▼

Stale-suspected means the claim was once true but a version, date, count, or name has drifted, making it a maintenance task. Unsupported means the evidence never carried the claim, with reasons of missing-evidence, contradicted, or insufficient-coverage.

Can this skill run tests or commands to verify claims?▼

No, the skill never executes commands, builds, or tests. When a claim can only be settled by running something, it labels the claim needs-human and names the exact command and target file a maintainer should run.

Does the documentation audit fix incorrect statements it finds?▼

No, the skill is strictly read-only and produces findings only. It describes what a maintainer would change and where, but never emits patches, diffs, or rewritten passages.

What happens if I provide no evidence for the documentation audit?▼

An empty evidence set is valid input. No claim can be labeled verified, so the report lists every claim as unsupported or needs-human and names the specific evidence a maintainer still needs to supply.

How are subjective statements like fast or developer-friendly handled?▼

Subjective statements cannot be checked against evidence, so they are excluded from labeling and listed under Input Scope Reviewed with a one-line reason. When a subjective adjective wraps a checkable core, the core is labeled and the adjective excluded.