agentleFS
jkitchinjkitchin/knowhow/skills/citation-verifier/SKILL.md

citation-verifier

Skill42 starsChanged 17 days agoMITView on GitHub

Verify citations and references in scientific documents to detect hallucinated or invalid sources. Extracts DOIs, URLs, arXiv IDs, PubMed IDs, and ISBNs from Markdown, LaTeX, org-mode, and plain text, then validates them using API lookups and web fetches.

7 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

21 rules. 0 are common, 20 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 20

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use the Read tool to load the document.

    line 83
  2. Distinctive:

    Create a list of unique identifiers, categorized by type:

    line 108
  3. Distinctive:

    Use WebFetch to check the API

    line 122
  4. Distinctive:

    If successful, extract: title, authors, journal, year

    line 123
  5. Distinctive:

    If 404 or error: mark as INVALID

    line 124
  6. Distinctive:

    Use WebFetch to verify page exists

    line 128
  7. Distinctive:

    If 404: mark as INVALID

    line 130
  8. Distinctive:

    Use WebFetch to verify

    line 134
  9. Distinctive:

    Use WebFetch to check

    line 140
  10. Distinctive:

    Use WebFetch to access the URL

    line 145
  11. Distinctive:

    Check for HTTP 200 and academic content indicators

    line 146
  12. Distinctive:

    Look for: paper title, authors, DOI on page

    line 147
  13. Distinctive:

    If unreachable or non-academic: mark as SUSPICIOUS

    line 148
  14. Very specific:

    Use WebSearch with query: "{author}" "{year}" paper

    line 151
  15. Distinctive:

    Look for matching papers in results

    line 152
  16. Distinctive:

    If found: mark as LIKELY VALID with source

    line 153
  17. Distinctive:

    If not found: mark as UNVERIFIED

    line 154
  18. Distinctive:

    Respect rate limits: Add delays between requests if hitting rate limits

    line 206
  19. Distinctive:

    Cross-reference: If a URL contains a DOI, verify the DOI directly

    line 207
  20. Distinctive:

    Report uncertainty: Always distinguish between "confirmed invalid" and "could not verify"

    line 209
  21. Distinctive:

    Verify each identifier using appropriate API/fetch

    line 229

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Citation Verifier

Detect and verify citations in scientific documents to identify hallucinated, broken, or invalid references.

Purpose

AI-generated content sometimes includes plausible-looking but fake citations. This skill systematically extracts all citation identifiers from a document and verifies each one against authoritative sources, producing a detailed report with verification status and suggestions for fixing invalid citations.

When to Use

This skill should be invoked when:

  • User asks to "verify citations" or "check references" in a document
  • User suspects hallucinated citations in AI-generated content
  • User wants to validate DOIs, URLs, or other identifiers in a paper
  • User asks to audit a document for broken links or fake references
  • User mentions "citation verification", "reference checking", or "DOI validation"

Supported Document Formats

  1. Markdown (.md): Inline links [text](url), reference links [text][ref], bare URLs, DOIs
  2. LaTeX/BibTeX (.tex, .bib): \cite{}, @article{}, DOI fields, URL fields
  3. Org-mode (.org): [[url][text]] links, #+BIBLIOGRAPHY, cite links
  4. Plain text (.txt): Bare URLs, DOIs, arXiv IDs, author-year patterns

Citation Identifiers Detected

DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers)

  • Pattern: 10.\d{4,}/[^\s]+ or doi.org/10.\d{4,}/[^\s]+
  • Example: 10.1038/nature12373, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc1234
  • Verification: CrossRef API at https://api.crossref.org/works/{doi}

URLs to Papers

  • Patterns: Links to known publishers and repositories
  • Domains: nature.com, science.org, sciencedirect.com, springer.com, wiley.com, acs.org, rsc.org, pnas.org, cell.com, plos.org, mdpi.com, frontiersin.org, academic.oup.com, tandfonline.com
  • Verification: HTTP HEAD/GET request, check for 200 status and paper metadata

arXiv IDs

  • Pattern: arXiv:\d{4}\.\d{4,5}(v\d+)? or arxiv.org/abs/\d{4}\.\d{4,5}
  • Example: arXiv:2301.07041, https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.07041v2
  • Verification: arXiv API or direct URL check

PubMed IDs (PMIDs)

  • Pattern: PMID:\s*\d+ or pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/\d+
  • Example: PMID: 12345678
  • Verification: PubMed URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/{pmid}/

ISBNs

  • Pattern: ISBN[:\s]*[\d-]{10,17} (ISBN-10 or ISBN-13)
  • Example: ISBN: 978-0-13-468599-1
  • Verification: Open Library API https://openlibrary.org/isbn/{isbn}.json

Author-Year Citations

  • Pattern: ([A-Z][a-z]+(?:\s+(?:et\s+al\.?|and|&)\s+[A-Z][a-z]+)?,?\s*\d{4})
  • Example: (Smith et al., 2023), (Johnson and Lee, 2022)
  • Verification: WebSearch to find matching paper (lower confidence)

Verification Procedure

Step 1: Read and Parse Document

Use the Read tool to load the document. Extract all citation identifiers using pattern matching:

DOI patterns:
- https?://(?:dx\.)?doi\.org/(10\.\d{4,}/[^\s\])"'>]+)
- doi:\s*(10\.\d{4,}/[^\s\])"'>]+)
- (10\.\d{4,9}/[-._;()/:A-Z0-9]+)  (bare DOI)

arXiv patterns:
- arXiv:(\d{4}\.\d{4,5}(?:v\d+)?)
- arxiv\.org/abs/(\d{4}\.\d{4,5}(?:v\d+)?)

PubMed patterns:
- PMID:\s*(\d+)
- pubmed\.ncbi\.nlm\.nih\.gov/(\d+)

URL patterns:
- https?://[^\s\])"'<>]+  (filter for academic domains)

ISBN patterns:
- ISBN[:\s-]*((?:\d[-\s]?){9}[\dXx]|(?:\d[-\s]?){13})

Step 2: Deduplicate and Categorize

Create a list of unique identifiers, categorized by type:

  • DOIs
  • arXiv IDs
  • PubMed IDs
  • ISBNs
  • URLs (academic)
  • Author-year citations (text-based)

Step 3: Verify Each Identifier

For each identifier, perform verification in order of reliability:

DOI Verification

  1. Construct CrossRef API URL: https://api.crossref.org/works/{doi}
  2. Use WebFetch to check the API
  3. If successful, extract: title, authors, journal, year
  4. If 404 or error: mark as INVALID

arXiv Verification

  1. Construct URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/{arxiv_id}
  2. Use WebFetch to verify page exists
  3. Extract: title, authors, abstract snippet
  4. If 404: mark as INVALID

PubMed Verification

  1. Construct URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/{pmid}/
  2. Use WebFetch to verify
  3. Extract: title, authors, journal
  4. If 404: mark as INVALID

ISBN Verification

  1. Construct URL: https://openlibrary.org/isbn/{isbn}.json
  2. Use WebFetch to check
  3. Extract: title, authors, publisher
  4. If 404: mark as INVALID

URL Verification

  1. Use WebFetch to access the URL
  2. Check for HTTP 200 and academic content indicators
  3. Look for: paper title, authors, DOI on page
  4. If unreachable or non-academic: mark as SUSPICIOUS

Author-Year Verification (lowest confidence)

  1. Use WebSearch with query: "{author}" "{year}" paper
  2. Look for matching papers in results
  3. If found: mark as LIKELY VALID with source
  4. If not found: mark as UNVERIFIED

Step 4: Generate Report

Produce a structured verification report:

# Citation Verification Report

**Document:** [filename]
**Date:** [date]
**Total citations found:** [count]

## Summary
- Valid: [count]
- Invalid: [count]
- Suspicious: [count]
- Unverified: [count]

## Detailed Results

### Valid Citations
| ID | Type | Title | Source |
|----|------|-------|--------|
| 10.1038/xxx | DOI | Paper Title | CrossRef |

### Invalid Citations (HALLUCINATED)
| ID | Type | Error | Suggestion |
|----|------|-------|------------|
| 10.9999/fake | DOI | 404 Not Found | Remove or find correct DOI |

### Suspicious Citations
| ID | Type | Issue | Recommendation |
|----|------|-------|----------------|
| https://... | URL | Timeout | Verify manually |

### Unverified Citations
| Citation | Type | Notes |
|----------|------|-------|
| (Smith, 2023) | Author-year | No matching paper found via search |

Verification Status Definitions

  • VALID: Identifier resolves to a real paper with matching metadata
  • INVALID: Identifier does not exist or returns 404 (likely hallucinated)
  • SUSPICIOUS: Could not fully verify; may be rate-limited, paywalled, or temporarily unavailable
  • UNVERIFIED: Text-based citation that couldn't be confirmed (conservative approach)

Best Practices

  1. Batch similar requests: Group DOI checks together to minimize API calls
  2. Respect rate limits: Add delays between requests if hitting rate limits
  3. Cross-reference: If a URL contains a DOI, verify the DOI directly
  4. Context matters: Note where citations appear (methods vs. claims)
  5. Report uncertainty: Always distinguish between "confirmed invalid" and "could not verify"

Output Suggestions for Invalid Citations

For each invalid citation, provide actionable suggestions:

  • Wrong DOI format: "DOI appears malformed. Check for typos or extra characters."
  • Non-existent DOI: "No paper found. This may be hallucinated. Search for the actual paper title."
  • Dead URL: "URL returns 404. Try searching for the paper title on Google Scholar."
  • Suspicious journal: "Publisher not recognized. Verify this is a legitimate source."
  • Author-year not found: "Could not verify. Add DOI or URL for confirmation."

Example Verification Session

User request: "Verify the citations in my-paper.md"

Expected behavior:

  1. Read my-paper.md
  2. Extract all DOIs, URLs, arXiv IDs, etc.
  3. Report: "Found 15 citations: 8 DOIs, 5 URLs, 2 arXiv IDs"
  4. Verify each identifier using appropriate API/fetch
  5. Generate report showing:
    • 10 valid citations with metadata
    • 3 invalid citations (404 errors) marked as likely hallucinated
    • 2 suspicious citations (timeouts) requiring manual check
  6. Provide suggestions for fixing invalid citations

Limitations

  • Rate limits: CrossRef and other APIs may rate-limit requests
  • Paywalled content: Cannot verify full content behind paywalls
  • New papers: Very recent papers may not be indexed yet
  • Author-year citations: Low confidence without additional identifiers
  • Non-English sources: Limited support for non-English citation formats
  • Private/institutional URLs: Cannot access authenticated content

Related Skills

  • literature-review: For conducting systematic literature searches
  • scientific-reviewer: For reviewing scientific document quality
  • scientific-writing: For writing with proper citations

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.