reference-auditor
Skill10 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub
Extracts every DOI from a draft and verifies it against the Crossref API. A DOI that does not exist fails the gate and stops the pipeline; a network failure is reported as unknown, never as a pass.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- yhoshan/thakaly-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- yhoshan/thakaly-skills★ 4same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository22 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- .cursor/rules/chelate-shell.mdcCursor rule
- 3d-modelerSkill
- ai-trace-removerSkill
- bibtex-normalizerSkill
- capstone-labmateSkill
- conflict-detectorSkill
- data-profilerSkill
- document-evolution-trackerSkill
- formula-validatorSkill
- fulltext-extractorSkill
- latex-exporterSkill
- literature-retrieverSkill
- longitudinal-analysisSkill
- ml-auditorSkill
- multi-dim-managerSkill
- quantitative-validatorSkill
- sci-visualizerSkill
- security-guardSkill
- task-organizerSkill
- video-trackerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 25
Run this exact form — do not read the source tree:
- Distinctive: line 44
No DOI is present; other identifiers are out of scope.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
reference-auditor
Checks that each DOI in the draft resolves in Crossref. It confirms existence only — not that the DOI is the paper you meant to cite.
- Stage:
gates· Sandbox: no · Dependencies:requests
Quick Execution
Run this exact form — do not read the source tree:
python run.py --root <WS> --action audit --input draft.md--text "..."audits inline text instead of a file.--timeoutoverrides the per-DOI HTTP timeout (default from config).- The gate lands in
<WS>/process/gates/reference-auditor_<ts>.json.
When to use
- A draft with citations is about to be delivered.
- A DOI is suspected to be fabricated.
- A bibliography must be checked before submission.
When NOT to use
- The citation content must be judged — only existence is checked.
- No DOI is present; other identifiers are out of scope.
Actions
--action | Does | Extra arguments |
audit | Extract and verify every DOI | --input <draft> | --text "..." [--timeout N] |
Hard constraints
- A non-existent DOI is a FAIL, never a warning.
- A network error is
unknown, never a pass. - Never rewrite the DOI. Report it exactly as found.
Outputs
<WS>/process/gates/reference-auditor_<ts>.json— the gate result.- A per-DOI verification table under
process/.
Failure handling
- Crossref unreachable →
UNVERIFIED/unknownwith the HTTP error. - A draft with no DOI yields a pass with an explicit "nothing to check" note.
Limitations
- Existence only — citation correctness stays the author's responsibility.
- One HTTP request per DOI; a large bibliography is rate-limited.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

