People seem to have different opinions on how good forecasts are. I think it likely depends on which model your forecast source of choice pulls from. I notice that the weather on my Apple Watch corresponds exactly to what GFS says. GFS is OK for medium range, but I don't find it too useful for shorter range. NAM is better for a day or two out. HRRR is better for a few hours out.

Rather than letting some aggregator simplify the weather for you, you can just look at the raw data yourself: https://weather.cod.edu/forecast/

For big events, the media briefings by the National Weather Service are good resources. But they often stop the briefings early; a few weeks ago we had a high probability of a large amount of snowfall. The updates stopped at like 9AM, the snow was forecast to start around 1PM. Watching the short term models showed that the probability for snow was decreasing (NYC was just below the snow/rain line), and indeed we got pretty much no snow. (It snowed, but it didn't accumulate and the change to rain happened early.) To be fair, the briefing from the weather service said that the changeover time between snow and rain was very uncertain and that it would be the difference between a little rain and major snow event. But my point is, you can always go get yourself some more data; the closer you get to the event, the more accurate the forecast is.

(I don't know if any of you watch Skip Talbot, but he was looking at helicity swaths on the HRRR a few hours out, found a big one, and where HRRR predicted the strong rotation in the storm is pretty much exactly the path of a major tornado. HRRR is never going to be perfect, but it is right a lot.)