modelscopemodelscope/OpenJudge/skills/academic-eval/02-bib-verify/SKILL.md

02-bib-verify

Skill1.1k starsChanged 10 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Verify a BibTeX file for hallucinated or fabricated references by cross-checking every entry against CrossRef, arXiv, and DBLP. Reports each reference as verified, suspect, or not found, with field-level mismatch details (title, authors, year, DOI). Use when the user wants to check a .bib file for fake citations, validate references in a paper, or audit bibliography entries for accuracy.

Installs packages

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

agentscope-ai/OpenJudgeword for word, first seen Oct 25, 2026

Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
agentscope-ai/OpenJudge★ 1.1k100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- 00-academic-routerSkill
- 01-paper-reviewSkill
- 03-ref-hallucination-arenaSkill
- 00-arena-routerSkill
- 01-auto-arenaSkill
- 02-ref-hallucination-arenaSkill
- claude-authenticitySkill
- meta-evalSkill
- eval-designSkill
- metric-designSkill
- align-humanSkill
- eval-reportSkill
- rag-evalSkill
- prompt-regressionSkill
- redteamSkill
- bootstrapSkill
- find-skills-comboSkill
- mmx-cliSkill
- 01-graders-and-pipelineSkill
- 02-rl-rewardSkill

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
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

Very specific:
Check every entry in a .bib file against real academic databases using the OpenJudge PaperReviewPipeline in BibTeX-only mode:
line 14

≈ “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.

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

Files

SKILL.md

BibTeX Verification Skill

Check every entry in a .bib file against real academic databases using the OpenJudge PaperReviewPipeline in BibTeX-only mode:

Parse — extract all entries from the .bib file
Lookup — query CrossRef, arXiv, and DBLP for each reference
Match — compare title, authors, year, and DOI
Report — flag each entry as verified, suspect, or not_found

Prerequisites

pip install py-openjudge litellm

Gather from user before running

Info	Required?	Notes
BibTeX file path	Yes	`.bib` file to verify
CrossRef email	No	Improves CrossRef API rate limits

Quick start

# Verify a standalone .bib file
python -m cookbooks.paper_review --bib_only references.bib

# With CrossRef email for better rate limits
python -m cookbooks.paper_review --bib_only references.bib --email your@email.com

# Save report to a custom path
python -m cookbooks.paper_review --bib_only references.bib \
  --email your@email.com --output bib_report.md

Relevant options

Flag	Default	Description
`--bib_only`	—	Path to `.bib` file (required for standalone verification)
`--email`	—	CrossRef mailto — improves rate limits, recommended
`--output`	auto	Output `.md` report path
`--language`	`en`	Report language: `en` or `zh`

Interpreting results

Each reference entry is assigned one of three statuses:

Status	Meaning
`verified`	Found in CrossRef / arXiv / DBLP with matching fields
`suspect`	Title or authors do not match any real paper — likely hallucinated or mis-cited
`not_found`	No match in any database — treat as fabricated

Field-level details are shown for suspect entries:

title_match — whether the title matches a real paper
author_match — whether the author list matches
year_match — whether the publication year is correct
doi_match — whether the DOI resolves to the right paper

Additional resources

Full pipeline options: ../01-paper-review/reference.md
Combined PDF review + BibTeX verification: ../01-paper-review/SKILL.md

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.

Check your setup, free