Citation Crosscheck
Double-blind bibliographic cross-check: one agent extracts each cited entry verbatim...
Install
npx skills add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep --skill citation-crosscheck -g -a claude-code -y- Repository
- wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep18.4k
- Category
- Documents
- Updated
- 4d ago
- License
- MIT
- Context cost
- Mediumabout 3,000 tokens
- Runs scripts
- Yes, review before use
What it does
Double-blind bibliographic cross-check: one agent extracts each cited entry verbatim from the local .bib, a second independently re-fetches the same paper's record from the web while blind to the .bib, and a third extractor emits a mechanical field-by-field delta to catch dropped/re-ordered authors, wrong years, wrong venues, and bad DOIs/arXiv ids. The main agent (never a shard) assigns the MATCH/MINOR/MISMATCH verdict per reference, and exports a side-by-side spreadsheet. Use when user says \"citation crosscheck\", \"double-blind citation check\", \"verify bib against scholar\", \"bib field audit\", \"引用交叉核对\", or before submission when bibliography FIELD accuracy (not just existence) must be certified.
Citation Cross-Check (double-blind bib-vs-web field audit)
🔒 Do not wrap this skill in
/loop,/schedule, orCronCreate. It is verdict-bearing, it emits a per-reference verdict that gates.bibedits (an evidence instrument, not a cross-model acquittal; see the acceptance-gate note in Step 2). Re-running it on a timer adds no signal (the verdict changes only when the bibliography changes). Schedule the external wait that precedes it: bibliography finalized → run once. Seeshared-references/external-cadence.md.
Why this exists (and how it differs from citation-audit)
citation-audit is a single cross-model reviewer that judges three things holistically:
existence, metadata, and context-fit (is the cited paper used for a claim it
actually supports?). This skill does not do context-fit. It does one thing that a
single reviewer cannot do reliably: an adversarial, double-blind, field-level diff
of the local .bib entry against an independently reconstructed record.
The failure mode it targets is the hand-entry error that survives a plausibility read:
a dropped or re-ordered author, a wrong year, a swapped venue, a DOI that
404s. A single reviewer that sees the .bib entry tends to anchor on it and rate it
"looks correct." Two agents that never see each other's output cannot anchor, a
discrepancy only survives if both independent records agree, and the verifier reports
exactly where they diverge.
