smithery/abilityai

dd-verification

Verify claims in pitch decks and founder statements using multiple independent sources. Use when analyzing any claim about market size, traction, team background, or competitive positioning.

Installation

$ npx skills add smithery/abilityai --skill dd-verification

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from smithery/abilityai.

npx skills add smithery/abilityai

Browse all from smithery/abilityai

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 2,544 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 213 B

History

  1. First recorded snapshot · 0 installs

SKILL.md

Claim Verification Methodology

When analyzing claims from pitch decks, founder statements, or company materials, follow this rigorous verification process.

Verification Levels

Assign one of these confidence levels to every claim:

Level Definition Requirements
VERIFIED Confirmed via 2+ independent sources Multiple credible sources agree
PARTIALLY VERIFIED Some evidence supports, gaps remain One credible source + logical consistency
UNVERIFIED Cannot confirm with available data No independent sources found
CONTRADICTED Evidence conflicts with claim Sources disagree with stated claim

Verification Process

1. Identify the Claim

Extract the specific, testable assertion:

  • ❌ "We're growing fast" (vague)
  • ✅ "We grew 300% YoY in 2024" (specific, testable)

2. Find Independent Sources

Never rely solely on company-provided materials. Seek:

  • Public filings (SEC, state records)
  • Third-party data providers (Crunchbase, PitchBook, LinkedIn)
  • Press coverage (with dates)
  • Customer reviews and testimonials
  • Industry reports from analysts

3. Cross-Reference

Compare across sources:

  • Do numbers align within reasonable variance (±10%)?
  • Are timelines consistent?
  • Do different sources tell the same story?

4. Document Everything

For each verified claim, record:

{
  "claim": "The specific claim text",
  "confidence": "VERIFIED | PARTIALLY VERIFIED | UNVERIFIED | CONTRADICTED",
  "sources": [
    {"name": "Source name", "url": "URL if available", "date": "YYYY-MM-DD"}
  ],
  "notes": "Any caveats or context"
}

Red Flags

Watch for these warning signs:

  • Round numbers without context ("$10M ARR exactly")
  • Claims that can't be independently verified
  • Metrics that don't match industry standards
  • Vague timeframes ("recently", "soon")
  • Comparisons without clear methodology

Output Format

Include a verification summary in your analysis:

{
  "verification_summary": {
    "total_claims_analyzed": 15,
    "verified": 8,
    "partially_verified": 4,
    "unverified": 2,
    "contradicted": 1
  },
  "key_concerns": [
    "Market size claim contradicted by industry reports",
    "Founder employment dates don't match LinkedIn"
  ]
}