Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From thinking-frameworks-skills
Evaluates claims by triangulating sources, rating evidence quality, and reaching confidence-rated conclusions. Use for fact-checking, due diligence, or resolving conflicting evidence.
npx claudepluginhub lyndonkl/claude --plugin thinking-frameworks-skillsHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/thinking-frameworks-skills:research-claim-mapThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
1. [Workflow](#workflow)
Audits evidence quality for claims, covering type hierarchy, sample quality, conflicts of interest, and missing evidence.
Investigates complex claims across diverse sources or fact-checks contradictory information via triangulation, credibility audits, and verification matrices using WebSearch, WebFetch, Read, Grep, Glob.
Classifies findings by evidence strength using a grounding ladder. Use for fact-checking claims, assigning confidence, and diagnosing weak support in investigations.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
Research Claim Map Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Define the claim precisely
- [ ] Step 2: Gather and categorize evidence
- [ ] Step 3: Rate evidence quality and source credibility
- [ ] Step 4: Identify limitations and gaps
- [ ] Step 5: Draw evidence-based conclusion
Step 1: Define the claim precisely
Restate the claim as a specific, testable assertion. Avoid vague language - use numbers, dates, and clear terms. See Common Patterns for claim reformulation examples.
Step 2: Gather and categorize evidence
Collect sources supporting and contradicting the claim. Organize into "Evidence For" and "Evidence Against". For straightforward verification → Use resources/template.md. For complex multi-source investigations → Study resources/methodology.md.
Step 3: Rate evidence quality and source credibility
Apply Evidence Quality Framework to rate each source (primary/secondary/tertiary). Apply Source Credibility Assessment to evaluate expertise, bias, and track record.
Step 4: Identify limitations and gaps
Document what's unknown, what assumptions were made, and where evidence is weak or missing. See resources/methodology.md for gap analysis techniques.
Step 5: Draw evidence-based conclusion
Synthesize findings into confidence level (0-100%) and actionable recommendation (believe/skeptical/reject claim). Self-check using resources/evaluators/rubric_research_claim_map.json before delivering. Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5.
Rating scale:
Primary Evidence (Strongest):
Secondary Evidence (Medium):
Tertiary Evidence (Weakest):
Non-Evidence (Unreliable):
Evaluate each source on:
Expertise (Does source have relevant knowledge?):
Independence (Is source biased or conflicted?):
Track Record (Has source been accurate before?):
Methodology (How did source obtain information?):
Pattern 1: Vendor Claim Verification
Pattern 2: Academic Literature Review
Pattern 3: News Fact-Checking
Pattern 4: Statistical Claims
Avoid common biases:
Quality standards:
Ethical considerations:
Resources:
resources/evaluators/rubric_research_claim_map.jsonEvidence hierarchy: Primary > Secondary > Tertiary
Credibility factors: Expertise + Independence + Track Record + Methodology
Confidence calibration: