Claim Source Verification
Use when a manuscript's claims need to be checked against the sources cited for them...
Install
npx skills add Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills --skill claim-source-verification -g -a claude-code -y- Repository
- Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills646
- Category
- AI and agents
- Updated
- 22d ago
- License
- MIT
- Context cost
- Mediumabout 2,828 tokens
- Runs scripts
- No, instructions only
What it does
Use when a manuscript's claims need to be checked against the sources cited for them, when literature search results must be verified before they enter a draft, or when an agent or collaborator has proposed references that have not yet been adversarially reviewed. This is claim-to-evidence verification, not bibliography hygiene; for duplicate keys, DOI syntax, and metadata cleanup use citation-verifier instead.
Claim-Source Verification
Overview
A citation can be perfectly real, perfectly formatted, and still wrong, because the paper it points to does not say what the sentence claims it says. That is the failure this skill exists to catch, and it is the dominant one.
The calibration comes from a real Review manuscript. Seven research agents proposed 139 sources to resolve 44 open factual questions. An independent skeptic then re-checked every one. It rejected 55.
| Rejection class | Count |
|---|---|
does_not_support_claim | 29 |
metadata_wrong | 12 |
wrong_site_or_population | 6 |
not_primary_but_required_to_be | 5 |
paywalled_unverifiable | 3 |
None was fabricated. Every rejected source was a real, findable paper with a real DOI. An existence check would have passed all 139. A metadata check would have caught 12. The largest class, more than half of all rejections, is invisible to both: a genuine paper made to carry a conclusion it does not reach.
So the operating rule is: a source's existence is not evidence that it supports the claim, and a clean bibliography audit is not evidence of anything at all.
When To Use
Use this skill when:
- an agent, a collaborator, or a literature-search tool has proposed references and nothing has adversarially checked them yet
- a manuscript makes quantitative claims (limits, thresholds, error rates, standard clauses, benchmark numbers) that trace to cited sources
- open factual or sourcing markers are being closed out in batch
- a Review or survey is being sourced, where most claims are about other people's measurements rather than the author's own
Do not use this skill for:
