agentleFS
papersflow-aipapersflow-ai/papersflow-skills/skills/citation-verifier/SKILL.md

citation-verifier

Skill4 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Verify, normalize, and enrich a single citation or paper identifier. Use when the user pastes a DOI, URL, arXiv ID, PubMed ID, citation string, or paper title and wants it checked.

7 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 4

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill when the user wants to quickly verify or normalize a single paper reference rather than run a full literature search.

    line 8
  2. Very specific:

    Call verify_citation with the raw input.

    line 13
  3. Very specific:

    If verification succeeds, call fetch with the resolved identifier to get the full paper record.

    line 14
  4. Distinctive:

    If verification fails or is ambiguous, say so clearly and suggest what the user can try (e.g., a more complete title, a different …

    line 29
  5. Distinctive:

    Always call this first. It handles:

    line 35
  6. Distinctive:

    Call after successful verification to hydrate the full paper record with abstract, citation count, and venue details.

    line 45

“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

Use this skill when the user wants to quickly verify or normalize a single paper reference rather than run a full literature search.

Workflow

  1. Accept whatever the user provides: DOI, URL, arXiv ID, PubMed ID, citation string, or a partial title.
  2. Call verify_citation with the raw input.
  3. If verification succeeds, call fetch with the resolved identifier to get the full paper record.
  4. Present the normalized result.

Output Style

Return a clean, structured card with:

  • Title — full paper title
  • Authors — first three authors, et al. if more
  • Year — publication year
  • Venue — journal or conference
  • DOI — canonical DOI if available
  • Identifiers — any additional IDs (arXiv, PubMed, Semantic Scholar)
  • Status — whether the citation was verified successfully or had issues

If verification fails or is ambiguous, say so clearly and suggest what the user can try (e.g., a more complete title, a different identifier).

Tool Guidance

Use verify_citation

Always call this first. It handles:

  • DOI strings (with or without resolver prefix)
  • arXiv IDs (e.g., 2301.12345, arXiv:2301.12345)
  • PubMed IDs
  • full or partial URLs from publisher sites, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar
  • free-text citation strings (e.g., "Smith et al. 2020, Neural networks for...")

Use fetch

Call after successful verification to hydrate the full paper record with abstract, citation count, and venue details.

Do NOT use

  • search_literature — this skill is for a known reference, not topic discovery
  • get_citation_graph — the user wants verification, not graph exploration

Examples

  • User pastes: 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2
  • User pastes: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.12345
  • User says: "Check this cite: Vaswani et al., Attention Is All You Need, NeurIPS 2017"
  • User says: "Is this DOI valid? 10.1234/fake.doi.000"
  • User pastes a Semantic Scholar or Google Scholar URL

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.