# Claim Source Verification

Use when a manuscript's claims need to be checked against the sources cited for them...

- Repository: https://github.com/Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills (646 stars)
- Category: AI and agents
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-10-13
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills --skill claim-source-verification -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills --skill claim-source-verification -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills --skill claim-source-verification -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills --skill claim-source-verification -g -a gemini-cli -y`

## Description

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.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# 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:

The rest: https://github.com/Boom5426/Nature-Paper-Skills/blob/HEAD/skills/core/claim-source-verification/SKILL.md