本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

check-citations

Verify academic citations against CrossRef, Semantic Scholar, and OpenAlex. Detects AI-hallucinated references, chimeric citations, and suspicious patterns.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(4)

  • SKILL.md5.0 KB
  • README-original.md6.5 KB
  • scripts/citation_checker.py25.1 KB
  • tests/test_citation_checker.py16.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

check-citations

Verify academic citations against CrossRef, Semantic Scholar, and OpenAlex. Detects AI-hallucinated references, chimeric citations (real title + wrong authors), and suspicious patterns before submission.

When to Use

  • After writing or editing a .bib file with AI assistance
  • Before submitting a paper, thesis, or report
  • When reviewing AI-generated literature sections
  • As a CI/CD check in LaTeX manuscript pipelines
  • When auditing existing bibliographies for dead or fabricated references

Background

  • 6-55% of AI-generated citations are fabricated (varies by model/domain)
  • 100+ hallucinated references found in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
  • Universities increasingly treat fake citations as academic misconduct
  • Three hallucination types: fully fabricated, chimeric (real title + wrong authors), modified real (slightly altered metadata)

Usage

Quick Check (Single File)

python scripts/citation_checker.py references.bib

Check All .bib Files in a Directory

python scripts/citation_checker.py path/to/report/

JSON Output (CI/CD Pipelines)

python scripts/citation_checker.py references.bib --json

Verbose Mode (Debug API Responses)

python scripts/citation_checker.py references.bib --verbose

How It Works

Cascading Multi-Source Verification

Each citation is checked against three independent databases:

SourceCoverageStrength
CrossRef140M+ DOI-registered worksBest for journal/conference papers with DOIs
Semantic Scholar200M+ papersBest author disambiguation, arXiv coverage
OpenAlex240M+ worksBroadest coverage, fully open

Verification logic:

  • Found in 2+ sources with matching title → verified (high confidence)
  • Found in 1 source only → suspicious (manual check recommended)
  • Found in 0 sources → not_found (likely hallucinated)

Chimeric Detection

When a citation's title matches a real paper but the authors don't overlap at all, it's flagged as a possible chimeric hallucination — the most dangerous type because the title looks real on Google Scholar.

Red Flag Heuristics

  • Invalid DOI format (doesn't start with 10.xxxx/)
  • Suspiciously generic title patterns ("A Comprehensive Survey of...")
  • Future publication year
  • Missing author or year fields
  • Single-word author names (incomplete metadata)

Exit Codes

CodeMeaning
0All citations verified
1One or more citations not found
2Suspicious citations only (no hard failures)

Dependencies

pip install requests

No API keys required — uses free tiers of all three databases.

Accuracy (Tested)

CategoryResultDescription
Known-good9/10 (90%)Famous ML papers (Vaswani, Devlin, Brown, He, etc.)
Known-bad10/10 (100%)Fabricated papers with plausible titles
Chimeric5/5 (100%)Real titles with wrong authors
False positive rate10%1 miss: unpublished tech report without DOI
False negative rate0%No fake paper was ever verified

The core guarantee: fake papers are never marked as real.

Limitations

  • Papers without DOI that have many derivatives (e.g., BERT without DOI) may not be found via title search alone — always include DOIs when available
  • Semantic Scholar free tier rate-limits at ~100 requests/5 minutes — batch verification is slower
  • Cannot verify papers behind paywalls or not indexed in any of the three databases
  • Book chapters, technical reports, and grey literature have lower coverage

Integration with LaTeX Workflows

Pre-commit Hook

#!/bin/bash
# .git/hooks/pre-commit
python scripts/citation_checker.py references.bib --json > /tmp/cite_check.json
NOT_FOUND=$(python3 -c "import json; d=json.load(open('/tmp/cite_check.json')); print(d['summary']['not_found'])")
if [ "$NOT_FOUND" -gt "0" ]; then
    echo "BLOCKED: $NOT_FOUND unfound citations. Run 'python scripts/citation_checker.py references.bib --verbose' to investigate."
    exit 1
fi

GitHub Actions

- name: Check citations
  run: |
    pip install requests
    python scripts/citation_checker.py references.bib --json > citation_report.json
    python -c "
    import json, sys
    r = json.load(open('citation_report.json'))
    if r['summary']['not_found'] > 0:
        print(f'FAIL: {r[\"summary\"][\"not_found\"]} citations not found')
        sys.exit(1)
    print(f'PASS: {r[\"summary\"][\"verified\"]} verified, {r[\"summary\"][\"suspicious\"]} suspicious')
    "

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

a1

無料

VS-Enhanced Research Question Refiner - Prevents Mode Collapse and derives differentiated research questions Enhanced VS 3-Phase process: Modal question avoidance, alternatives presentation, differentiated RQ recommendation Use when: refining research ideas, formulating research questions, clarifying scope Triggers: research question, 연구 질문, PICO, SPIDER, research idea

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5972026年10月12日 更新

a2

無料

VS-Enhanced Theoretical Framework Architect with Critique & Visualization Full VS 5-Phase process: Modal theory avoidance, Long-tail exploration, differentiated framework presentation Absorbed A3 (Devil's Advocate) critique and A6 (Conceptual Framework Visualizer) capabilities Use when: building theoretical foundations, designing conceptual models, deriving hypotheses, critiquing frameworks, visualizing models Triggers: theoretical framework, 이론적 프레임워크, conceptual model, 개념적 모형, hypothesis derivation, critique, devil's advocate, 반론, visualization, diagram

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5972026年10月12日 更新

a5

無料

Agent A5 - Paradigm & Worldview Advisor - Philosophical foundations for research design. Covers ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology alignment. Use when: establishing philosophical foundations, justifying methodological choices, writing positionality statements Triggers: paradigm, 패러다임, ontology, epistemology, worldview, 세계관, philosophical foundations, 철학적 기초

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5972026年10月12日 更新

Academic paper writing skill with 12-agent pipeline. v2.5: Style Calibration (learn author's writing voice from past papers) + Writing Quality Check (writing quality checklist for natural prose). Supports IMRaD, literature review, theoretical, case study, policy brief, and conference paper structures. APA 7.0 (default), Chicago, MLA, IEEE, Vancouver citation formats. Bilingual abstracts (zh-TW + EN). Multi-format output (LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, Markdown). Triggers on: write paper, academic paper, paper outline, write abstract, revise paper, check citations, convert to LaTeX, guide my paper, parse reviews, revision roadmap, 寫論文, 學術論文, 論文大綱, 寫摘要, 修改論文, 檢查引用, 引導我寫論文, 帶我規劃論文, 逐章規劃, 論文架構, 審查意見, 修訂路線圖.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5972026年10月12日 更新

Systematic writing framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. Use when users want to: (1) write a paper from a detailed outline, (2) ensure quality control during writing, (3) maintain consistency across chapters, (4) prepare a submission-ready manuscript, or (5) systematically execute a planned paper. Triggered by phrases like 'write the paper from this outline,' 'compose the full manuscript,' 'execute the outline,' or when users have completed strategic planning (academic-paper-strategist skill) and are ready to write. Takes optimized outline as input; outputs complete manuscript with iterative quality checks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5972026年10月12日 更新

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, and Socratic guided modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,5972026年10月12日 更新

brycewang-stanford のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する