Hunt through a site or doc set for facts that expired, claims that drifted wrong, and pages that contradict each other.
Why it works: Content rots silently and nothing flags it; naming the perishable claim types (prices, versions, 'currently') makes the model hunt for decay specifically, which generic proofreading never catches.
This is a message template. Fill in the blanks below, then paste it into the chat.
Audit my content for anything stale, outdated, or wrong. Treat every factual claim as having a shelf life, and check whether it has expired.
The content: [paste the pages, point at the repo or directory, or give the site URL if you can browse]
When it was written: [rough dates, per page if they differ]
The domain: [what the content covers, e.g. “LLM tools and practices”, “AWS infrastructure”]
Hunt specifically for:
Perishable facts. Prices, version numbers, product and model names, capability claims, anything phrased “currently” or “as of”. These have the shortest shelf life and the most confident tone.
Advice the world moved past. Practices that were right when written but have been superseded: renamed tools, deprecated APIs, defaults that changed, “the standard way” that no longer is.
Internal contradictions. Pages disagreeing with each other on facts, recommendations, or terminology. These accumulate as a site grows and no single page is wrong.
Aging references. Links that may be dead, named projects that pivoted or shut down, citations of things that have since changed.
Quiet wrongness. Claims that were never accurate in the first place. Verify before flagging; do not report a claim as wrong on vibes.
If you have web access, verify against current sources rather than your training data; your memory has a shelf life too, and say explicitly when you could not verify something.
For each issue, report:
Where: the page and a short quote
What: what’s wrong or suspect, and the current state of the world if you verified it
Fix: the suggested correction
Severity: wrong now / stale / aging (will be stale soon)
Then finish with two extras: a short list of claims you checked that are still accurate (so I don’t re-verify them), and 2-3 suggestions for content gaps or improvements you noticed along the way.