AI News HubLIVE
In-site rewrite2 min read

Verol: Stop AI hallucinations

Verol is a Chrome extension that adds an independent verification layer to ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, using real-time web lookups to validate sources and detect hallucinations.

SourceProduct Hunt AIAuthor: Mark

Verol: Stop AI hallucinations | Product Hunt

Verol

Launching today

Stop AI hallucinations

19 followers

Stop AI hallucinations

19 followers

Visit website

Chrome Extensions

AI Metrics and Evaluation

Stop asking LLMs "is this true?" when they hallucinate, they will just lie again. Verol fixes this by adding an independent verification layer to ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. It parses answers, executes real-time web lookups, and validates sources through a dedicated backend pipeline. You get instant verdicts, confidence metrics, and clickable sources. No data tracking; history stays local. 5 free runs to test it. Plans from $4.99/mo.

Overview

Reviews

Alternatives

Built with

Team

More

Free Options

Launch tags:Chrome Extensions•Productivity•Artificial Intelligence

Launch Team / Built With

Subscribe

Promoted

Maker

📌

Hey Product Hunt 👋

I'm Mark, creator of Verol.

I built this tool because I got tired of manually copy pasting AI answers into Google one sentence at a time to check if they were real. It was fine for a couple of days, but it quickly became exhausting and I still couldn't trust half of what came back.

Verol fixes this by sitting right on top of the AI chats you already use. Instead of asking the model "are you sure?" (which usually just triggers another confident, hallucinated paragraph), Verol extracts individual claims and passes them through an independent backend pipeline with live web lookups.

It currently works on ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. And soon this list will increase. You get a clear trust score, per claim verdicts, and actual, clickable source links. Plus, your verification history never leaves your browser it stays completely local in your browser.

Out of curiosity, I also ran a small benchmark (100 identical prompts across 3 models) to see how they stack up. It’s not a formal scientific study, but the charts are in the gallery if you want to see how often confident-sounding answers fall apart under a live source check.

There's a free tier with 5 verifications so you can test it on your own workflows. I’d love your honest feedback, especially if you rely on LLMs for research, coding, or anything where a subtle hallucination completely ruins your day.

I'll be here to answer questions all day. Thanks for checking it out! 🙏

Report

7d ago