mcpField
R
reference-audit-guide

reference-audit-guide

github.com/boom5426Documents637108 installsUpdated 2w ago
Repository

About reference-audit-guide

reference-audit-guide provides principles and a workflow for checking whether cited academic works exist and whether their metadata matches a manuscript. It complements local bibliography checks and claim-to-source review by consulting scholarly sources.

Key features

  1. 01Checks existence of cited works
  2. 02Matches titles, authors, years, and venues
  3. 03Prioritizes trusted scholarly sources
  4. 04Recommends verifying citations during writing
  5. 05Distinguishes metadata checks from claim checks

Use cases

  1. 01Verifying a DOI-backed citation
  2. 02Checking bibliography metadata against a paper
  3. 03Confirming a cited claim in the source text

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/boom5426/nature-paper-skills --skill reference-audit-guide

After installing, type/reference-audit-guidein Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled files

References and scripts installed along with SKILL.md.

references/
api-usage.md
common-errors.md
README.md
verification-rules.md
scripts/
api-clients.py
citation_io.py
format-checker.py
README.md
verify-citations.py

Details

From the project README

Citation Verification Reference Guide

Verification principles plus runnable citation checkers for academic writing.

Position in the citation pipeline

This repository separates three citation questions that are routinely confused. Run them in order.

  1. citation-verifier: is the bibliography a well-formed artifact? Duplicate keys, missing fields, DOI syntax, cited-but-undefined. Offline, immediate.
  2. This skill: does the cited work exist, and does its metadata match what the manuscript says? Queries live scholarly APIs. This is the only stage that catches a fabricated citation carrying a well-formed DOI.
  3. claim-source-verification: does the real, correctly-cited source actually support the sentence citing it?

None of the three substitutes for another. A clean local scan shows the bibliography is well-formed, not that the papers are real. A verified DOI shows the paper is real, not that it says what the sentence claims.

Core Principle: Proactively verify every citation during the writing process using trusted scholarly sources rather than memory.

Core Problems

Citation issues in academic papers seriously impact research integrity:

  1. Fake citations - Citing non-existent papers
  2. Incorrect information - Mismatched authors, titles, years, etc.
  3. Inconsistent formatting - Mixed citation formats
  4. Missing citations - Referenced but uncited work

These issues can lead to:

  • Paper rejection or retraction
  • Damage to academic reputation
  • Reviewers questioning research rigor

Verification Principles

This skill provides verification principles based on trusted scholarly sources:

1. Proactive Verification

Core idea: Verify immediately when adding a citation, rather than checking after writing is complete.

  • Search for the paper each time a citation is needed
  • Confirm the paper exists in a trusted source
  • Add to bibliography only after verification passes
2. Source Hierarchy

Prefer these sources:

  • publisher page or DOI resolver
  • PubMed for biomedical papers
  • arXiv for preprints
  • Crossref or Semantic Scholar for metadata cross-checking
  • Google Scholar as a fallback discovery aid
3. Information Matching Verification

Information that must match:

  • Title
  • Authors
  • Year
  • Publication venue
4. Claim Verification

Key principle: When citing a specific claim, confirm the claim actually appears in the paper.

  • Access the paper PDF
  • Search for relevant keywords
  • Confirm the accuracy of the claim
  • Record the section or page where the claim appears

Best Practices

  1. Never generate citations from memory
  2. Do not guess when verification fails
  3. Mark unverifiable references clearly
  4. Differentiate preprints from published versions
  5. Verify the claim, not just the metadata

Comments

Markdown supported