跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

check-citations

Check academic references in BibTeX files against CrossRef, Semantic Scholar, and OpenAlex. Flag missing papers, mismatched authors, and questionable metadata, then export results for manual review or automated manuscript checks.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

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

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Checking AI-assisted bibliographies
  • Reviewing references before submission
  • Auditing citations in literature reviews
  • Adding citation checks to LaTeX workflows

包含的文件(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)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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')
    "

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

a1

免费

Turn a broad research idea into clear, testable questions. Compare familiar and less conventional approaches, structure the selected question around its population and methods, and assess variables, feasibility, and potential theoretical contributions.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Turn a research topic into testable questions
  • Narrow an overly broad research question
  • Compare alternative research angles
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47462026年10月20日 更新

a2

免费

Helps build a research framework by comparing theories, mapping relationships between variables, and deriving testable hypotheses. Explores less conventional options, examines weaknesses and competing explanations, and produces diagrams with anticipated reviewer objections.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Comparing theories for a research question
  • Deriving hypotheses from relationships between variables
  • Examining weaknesses and anticipated reviewer objections
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47462026年10月20日 更新

a5

免费

Clarify the philosophical assumptions behind a research project and check whether they fit the proposed methods. Get a reasoned research stance, draft proposal wording, and guidance for explaining how the researcher's background and values shape the study.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Clarifying philosophical foundations for a research proposal
  • Explaining why the chosen research methods fit the study
  • Drafting a statement about the researcher's position
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47462026年10月20日 更新

Plan and draft academic papers through specialized agent roles covering literature, arguments, citations, and review. Get chapter guidance, revision roadmaps, Traditional Chinese and English abstracts, and documents formatted as LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, or Markdown.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Planning a paper chapter by chapter
  • Drafting a paper from research materials
  • Turning reviewer comments into a revision roadmap
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47462026年10月20日 更新

Turn a detailed outline into a philosophy or interdisciplinary manuscript. Draft chapters with repeated quality reviews, check terminology and arguments across sections, and prepare the manuscript, evaluation reports, abstract, and metadata for submission.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Draft a full paper from a detailed outline
  • Review argument and citation quality chapter by chapter
  • Check terminology and argument flow across chapters
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47462026年10月20日 更新

Simulate academic peer review through five reviewer roles tailored to the paper's field. Receive separate critiques, an editorial decision, and a prioritized revision roadmap, or check whether a revised manuscript addresses earlier comments.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Review a manuscript before journal submission
  • Examine research methods and statistical validity
  • Challenge core arguments and alternative explanations
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills47462026年10月20日 更新

查看 brycewang-stanford 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题