Agent Skills › Abilityai/trinity › dd-verification

dd-verification

GitHub

用于验证商业计划书及创始人声明中的市场、团队等主张。通过多源交叉比对，判定可信度并输出结构化报告。

docs/demos/vc-due-diligence/skills/dd-verification/SKILL.md Abilityai/trinity

Trigger Scenarios

分析商业计划书中的具体主张核实创始人背景或市场数据

Install

npx skills add Abilityai/trinity --skill dd-verification -g -y

More Options

Non-standard path

npx skills add https://github.com/Abilityai/trinity/tree/main/docs/demos/vc-due-diligence/skills/dd-verification -g -y

Use without installing

npx skills use Abilityai/trinity@dd-verification

指定 Agent (Claude Code)

npx skills add Abilityai/trinity --skill dd-verification -a claude-code -g -y

安装 repo 全部 skill

npx skills add Abilityai/trinity --all -g -y

预览 repo 内 skill

npx skills add Abilityai/trinity --list

SKILL.md

Frontmatter

{
    "name": "dd-verification",
    "description": "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."
}

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"
  ]
}