citation-verification
Skill35 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
This skill provides reference guidance for citation verification in academic writing. Use when the user asks about "citation verification best practices", "how to verify references", "preventing fake citations", or needs guidance on citation accuracy. This skill supports ml-paper-writing by providing detailed verification principles and common error patterns.
11 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Vepricov/claude-brainlabword for word, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- GoogleCloudPlatform/LifeSciencestheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- wangyi0403/dl-research-workflowtheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- terravic/pde-agent-plugintheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- Niko-mzz/Doctor-Ge-SCI-paper-Writingtheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- neelshah4/claude-citation-verificationtheir own version, first seen Sep 24, 2026
Other versions11 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- Vepricov/claude-brainlab★ 35100% same
- Clay-HHK/claude-skills★ 1100% same
Edited · 1
- Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar★ 5.9k81% same
Wrote their own version · 8
- GoogleCloudPlatform/LifeSciences★ 57same name
- koach08/claude-code-skills★ 4same name
- Niko-mzz/Doctor-Ge-SCI-paper-Writing★ 4same name
- wangyi0403/dl-research-workflow★ 4same name
- AllanWessels/Bratan★ 2same name
- earthskyisbig/auction-law★ 1same name
- neelshah4/claude-citation-verification★ 0same name
- terravic/pde-agent-plugin★ 0same 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 repository68 other files it gives its agents.
- rules/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- academic-plottingSkill
- agent-identifierSkill
- architecture-designSkill
- astar-paper-reviewSkill
- bug-detectiveSkill
- call-notesSkill
- cavemanSkill
- code-ingestSkill
- code-librarySkill
- code-review-excellenceSkill
- command-developmentSkill
- create-projectSkill
- daily-codingSkill
- defuddleSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- doc-coauthoringSkill
- experiment-runsSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- git-guardrails-claude-codeSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- google-workspace-mcpSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- handoffSkill
- handoff-to-jarvisSkill
- hook-developmentSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- json-canvasSkill
- kaggle-learnerSkill
- lab-knowledgeSkill
- latex-conference-template-organizerSkill
- mcp-integrationSkill
- ml-paper-writingSkill
- obsidian-basesSkill
- obsidian-cliSkill
- obsidian-experiment-logSkill
- obsidian-markdownSkill
- operon-obsidian-setupSkill
- paper-ingestSkill
- paper-searchSkill
- paper-to-socialSkill
- paper-venue-formattingSkill
- pdf-readerSkill
- planning-with-filesSkill
- plugin-structureSkill
- presentationSkill
- presenter-modeSkill
- prototypeSkill
- research-cycleSkill
- research-ideationSkill
- restore-sessionSkill
- results-analysisSkill
- results-reportSkill
- reverse-outline-flow-checkSkill
- review-responseSkill
- setup-pre-commitSkill
- skill-developmentSkill
- tddSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
21 rules. 0 are common, 18 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.
18
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 36
Core idea: Verify immediately when adding a citation, rather than checking after writing is complete.
- Distinctive: line 38
Search for the paper via WebSearch each time a citation is needed
- Distinctive: line 40
Add to bibliography only after verification passes
- Distinctive: line 53
Check citation count (abnormally low counts may indicate issues)
- Distinctive: line 66
Key principle: When citing a specific claim, you must confirm the claim actually appears in the paper.
- Distinctive: line 68
Use WebSearch to access the paper PDF
- Distinctive: line 69
Search for relevant keywords
- Distinctive: line 139
Try different queries: - Use different keyword combinations
- Very specific: line 141
Mark as pending: - Use [CITATION NEEDED] marker
- Distinctive: line 148
Update information: - Use the most accurate version
- Distinctive: line 156
Use WebSearch to find: - Verify every citation through WebSearch
- Distinctive: line 157
Confirm on Google Scholar: - Verify paper existence on Google Scholar
- Distinctive: line 158
Verify promptly: - Verify when adding citations, don't wait until finished
- Distinctive: line 162
Don't guess: - If you can't find the paper, don't fabricate information
- Very specific: line 163
Mark clearly: - Use [CITATION NEEDED] to mark explicitly
- Distinctive: line 171
Confirm venue: - Verify conference/journal name is correct
- Distinctive: line 172
Verify claims: - When citing specific claims, confirm they exist in the paper
- Distinctive: line 180
Not marking unverifiable citations
- Distinctive: line 183
Search every citation with WebSearch
- Distinctive: line 197
Verify claims (if needed)
- Very specific: line 200
Failure handling: When verification fails, mark as [CITATION NEEDED] and clearly notify the user.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 7 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.
Files
Citation Verification Reference Guide
A reference guide for citation verification in academic paper writing, providing verification principles and best practices.
Core Principle: Proactively verify every citation during the writing process using WebSearch and Google Scholar.
Core Problems
Citation issues in academic papers seriously impact research integrity:
- Fake citations - Citing non-existent papers (common issue with AI-generated citations)
- Incorrect information - Mismatched authors, titles, years, etc.
- Inconsistent formatting - Mixed citation formats
- Missing citations - Referenced but uncited work
These issues can lead to:
- Paper rejection or retraction
- Damage to academic reputation
- Reviewers questioning research rigor
Special risk with AI-assisted writing: AI-generated citations have approximately 40% error rate; every citation must be verified via WebSearch.
Verification Principles
This skill provides verification principles based on WebSearch and Google Scholar:
1. Proactive Verification (Verify During Writing)
Core idea: Verify immediately when adding a citation, rather than checking after writing is complete.
- Search for the paper via WebSearch each time a citation is needed
- Confirm the paper exists on Google Scholar
- Add to bibliography only after verification passes
2. Google Scholar Verification
Why Google Scholar:
- Most comprehensive academic literature coverage
- Provides citation count (credibility indicator)
- Directly provides BibTeX format
- Free and no API required
Verification steps:
- WebSearch query:
"site:scholar.google.com [paper title] [first author]" - Confirm the paper appears in results
- Check citation count (abnormally low counts may indicate issues)
- Click "Cite" to get BibTeX
3. Information Matching Verification
Information that must match:
- Title (minor differences allowed, e.g., capitalization)
- Authors (at least the first author must match)
- Year (±1 year difference allowed, considering preprints)
- Publication venue (conference/journal name)
4. Claim Verification
Key principle: When citing a specific claim, you must confirm the claim actually appears in the paper.
- Use WebSearch to access the paper PDF
- Search for relevant keywords
- Confirm the accuracy of the claim
- Record the section/page where the claim appears
Verification Workflow
Integration into Writing Process
Need a citation during writing
↓
WebSearch to find the paper
↓
Google Scholar to verify existence
↓
Confirm paper details
↓
Get BibTeX
↓
(If citing a specific claim) Verify the claim
↓
Add to bibliographyKey point: Verification is part of the writing process, not a separate post-processing step.
Usage Guide
Using with ml-paper-writing
The verification principles of this skill are integrated into the Citation Workflow of the ml-paper-writing skill.
Auto-trigger: Citation verification is automatically executed when writing papers with the ml-paper-writing skill.
Manual reference: Refer to this skill when you need detailed verification principles.
Verification Step Example
Scenario: Need to cite the Transformer paper
Step 1: WebSearch lookup
Query: "Attention is All You Need Vaswani 2017"
Result: Found multiple sources for the paper
Step 2: Google Scholar verification
Query: "site:scholar.google.com Attention is All You Need Vaswani"
Result: ✅ Paper exists, 50,000+ citations, NeurIPS 2017
Step 3: Confirm details
- Title: "Attention is All You Need"
- Authors: Vaswani, Ashish; Shazeer, Noam; Parmar, Niki; ...
- Year: 2017
- Venue: NeurIPS (NIPS)
Step 4: Get BibTeX
- Click "Cite" on Google Scholar
- Select BibTeX format
- Copy BibTeX entry
Step 5: Add to bibliography
- Paste into .bib file
- Use \cite{vaswani2017attention} in the paperHandling Verification Failures
If the paper cannot be found on Google Scholar:
- Check spelling - Is the title or author name correct?
- Try different queries - Use different keyword combinations
- Find alternative sources - Try arXiv, DOI
- Mark as pending - Use
[CITATION NEEDED]marker - Notify the user - Clearly state the citation cannot be verified
If information doesn't match:
- Confirm the source - Did you find the correct paper?
- Check versions - Preprint vs. published version
- Update information - Use the most accurate version
- Record discrepancies - Note the reason for differences
Best Practices
Preventing Fake Citations
- Never generate citations from memory - AI-generated citations have 40% error rate
- Use WebSearch to find - Verify every citation through WebSearch
- Confirm on Google Scholar - Verify paper existence on Google Scholar
- Verify promptly - Verify when adding citations, don't wait until finished
Handling Verification Failures
- Don't guess - If you can't find the paper, don't fabricate information
- Mark clearly - Use
[CITATION NEEDED]to mark explicitly - Notify the user - Clearly state which citations cannot be verified
- Provide reasons - Explain why verification failed (not found, info mismatch, etc.)
Improving Verification Accuracy
- Complete queries - Include title, author, year
- Check citation count - Citation count on Google Scholar is a credibility indicator
- Confirm venue - Verify conference/journal name is correct
- Verify claims - When citing specific claims, confirm they exist in the paper
Common Pitfalls
❌ Wrong approach:
- Generating BibTeX from memory
- Skipping Google Scholar verification
- Assuming a paper exists
- Not marking unverifiable citations
✅ Correct approach:
- Search every citation with WebSearch
- Confirm on Google Scholar
- Copy BibTeX from Google Scholar
- Clearly mark unverifiable citations
Summary
Core Principle: Proactively verify every citation during the writing process using WebSearch and Google Scholar.
Key Steps:
- WebSearch to find the paper
- Google Scholar to verify existence
- Confirm details
- Get BibTeX
- Verify claims (if needed)
- Add to bibliography
Failure handling: When verification fails, mark as [CITATION NEEDED] and clearly notify the user.
Integration: The principles of this skill are integrated into the ml-paper-writing skill for automatic verification.
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.

