CheckThat AI supports multiple prompting strategies to optimize claim extraction and normalization. Choose the right strategy based on your use case and desired output quality.Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://mintlify.com/Nikhil-Kadapala/checkthat/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
Available Prompting Strategies
CheckThat AI implements three core prompting approaches:Zero-Shot
Direct claim extraction without examples
Few-Shot
Learning from provided examples
Chain-of-Thought
Step-by-step reasoning process
Zero-Shot Prompting
Zero-shot prompting provides direct instructions without examples. Best for simple, straightforward claims.How It Works
The system uses the base instruction prompt defined inprompts.py:55:
- Sentence Splitting: Break down the post into individual sentences
- Selection: Identify verifiable information
- Disambiguation: Resolve referential and structural ambiguity
- Decomposition: Extract self-contained propositions
Example API Call
When to Use Zero-Shot
Best For
- Simple, clear statements
- News headlines
- Direct factual claims
- Quick processing needs
Avoid When
- Complex context required
- Ambiguous language
- Domain-specific jargon
- Subtle misinformation
Few-Shot Prompting
Few-shot prompting provides examples to guide the model’s behavior. The system includes pre-configured examples inprompts.py:59-118.
Example Structure
CheckThat AI includes 5 carefully curated examples covering:- Medical/institutional claims
- Celebrity/viral content
- Health misinformation
- Scientific false claims
- COVID-19 related content
Implementation Details
The few-shot prompt includes examples with clear structure:Example API Call with Few-Shot
When to Use Few-Shot
Use few-shot prompting when you need consistent output format or have domain-specific examples
- Establishing output format consistency
- Domain-specific terminology
- Complex extraction patterns
- Training on edge cases
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Reasoning
Chain-of-Thought prompting adds explicit reasoning steps before the final claim. Implemented with the trigger phrase fromprompts.py:57:
How CoT Works
The enhanced few-shot CoT prompt (prompts.py:120-215) includes detailed reasoning:
Example API Call with CoT
When to Use Chain-of-Thought
Best for:- Complex ambiguous statements
- Multi-part claims requiring decomposition
- Cases needing explicit context resolution
- High-stakes fact-checking scenarios
Strategy Comparison
- Performance
- Use Cases
- Code Examples
| Strategy | Speed | Accuracy | Token Usage | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero-Shot | Fast | Good | Low | $ |
| Few-Shot | Medium | Better | Medium | $$ |
| Chain-of-Thought | Slow | Best | High | $$$ |
System Prompt Details
The core system prompt (ClaimNorm) fromprompts.py:3-53 includes:
View Full System Prompt Structure
View Full System Prompt Structure
Identity:
- ClaimNorm AI assistant
- Expert in claim detection, extraction, and normalization
- Sentence Splitting and Context Creation
- Split post into sentences
- Create context using 2 preceding and 2 following sentences
- Selection
- Determine if sentence contains verifiable information
- Rewrite to retain only verifiable parts
- Disambiguation
- Resolve referential ambiguity (unclear references)
- Resolve structural ambiguity (multiple interpretations)
- Discard if ambiguity cannot be resolved
- Decomposition
- Identify specific, verifiable propositions
- Ensure decontextualization (self-contained)
- Create simplest discrete units of information
- If no verifiable claims found, return extractive summary
- Maximum 25 words
- Preserve named entities
- Return as news headline style
Advanced Techniques
Combining Strategies
You can combine strategies for optimal results:Custom System Prompts
Override the default system prompt for specialized use cases:Best Practices
Start Simple
Begin with zero-shot, upgrade to few-shot if needed
Test Examples
Validate few-shot examples match your domain
Monitor Costs
CoT uses 2-3x more tokens than zero-shot
Measure Quality
Use G-Eval metrics to compare strategies
Next Steps
Self-Refine
Iteratively improve claim quality
Custom Evaluation
Define your own quality metrics