Citation Audit

Run a pre-submission audit of citations, BibTeX entries, and LaTeX cross-references. This skill is for checking correctness before submission, not for broad literature discovery.

Use this skill when a paper already has draft citations and the user wants confidence that:

• every \cite{...} key in TeX exists in BibTeX
• every BibTeX entry is syntactically valid and not duplicated
• every \ref{...}, \cref{...}, \eqref{...}, \autoref{...} target exists
• every \label{...} is unique and follows the local naming convention
• DOI, arXiv, OpenReview, URL, title, author, year, and venue metadata match the real paper
• citation claims in nearby prose are actually supported by the cited work
• bibliography style is submission-ready

Pair this with submit-paper for the broader submission checklist. Pair it with research-project-memory when citation correctness issues should become blocking paper risks or actions.

Skill Directory Layout

<installed-skill-dir>/
├── SKILL.md
├── scripts/
│   └── audit_latex_refs.py
└── references/
    ├── citation-claim-audit.md
    ├── metadata-verification.md
    └── report-template.md

Progressive Loading

• Always run scripts/audit_latex_refs.py for deterministic TeX/BibTeX/reference checks.
• Read references/metadata-verification.md when checking DOI, arXiv, OpenReview, proceedings, or publisher metadata.
• Read references/citation-claim-audit.md when the user asks whether citations support the claims made in the paper, or when doing a full pre-submission audit.
• Use references/report-template.md for the final audit report.

Step 1 - Locate Paper Sources

Determine:

• paper root
• main TeX file
• all included TeX files
• BibTeX files referenced by \bibliography{...} or \addbibresource{...}
• target venue and submission mode if obvious

Useful local checks:

find . -maxdepth 4 -name "*.tex" -o -name "*.bib"
find . -maxdepth 3 -name "main.tex" -o -name "paper.tex"

If the user provides a paper directory, use it. If no main file is provided, prefer main.tex, then paper.tex, then the TeX file containing \begin{document}.

Step 2 - Run Deterministic Local Audit

Run:

python3 <citation-audit-skill-dir>/scripts/audit_latex_refs.py --paper-dir "$PAPER_DIR" --main "$MAIN_TEX"

Use an absolute path to the installed skill script. Do not assume a Claude-specific install path.

The script checks:

• included TeX file discovery
• citation keys in \cite, \citet, \citep, \citealp, \citeauthor, \citeyear, \textcite, \parencite
• BibTeX keys and basic syntax
• missing citation keys
• unused BibTeX entries
• duplicate BibTeX keys
• missing bibliography files
• duplicate labels
• undefined references
• labels that are never referenced
• unresolved LaTeX placeholders such as ?? and citation placeholders such as [?]

If the script reports blocking issues, fix or report those before doing web metadata checks. Metadata validation is much less useful if the TeX/BibTeX graph is broken.

Step 3 - Classify Findings

Use this severity model:

• blocking: missing cited key, duplicate BibTeX key, undefined ref, duplicate label, invalid BibTeX structure, broken DOI for a cited work
• important: metadata mismatch, wrong venue/year, likely duplicate entry, citation claim not supported, arXiv cited when peer-reviewed version should be cited
• warning: unused BibTeX entry, unreferenced label, inconsistent key naming, missing optional DOI/URL
• note: style cleanup, capitalization, field normalization, BibTeX key rename suggestion

Do not treat unused BibTeX entries as blocking unless the target venue or user requires a minimal bibliography.

Step 4 - Verify Metadata

Read references/metadata-verification.md.

For every cited key, verify the best available identifier:

• DOI through publisher/CrossRef/doi.org
• arXiv ID through arXiv
• OpenReview URL or forum ID through OpenReview
• proceedings URL for NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL Anthology, CVF, ACM, IEEE, Springer, or PMLR

Check:

• title
• author list or first author + author count
• year
• venue or publication status
• DOI/arXiv/OpenReview/proceedings URL
• whether a peer-reviewed version exists

When metadata cannot be verified, mark it explicitly instead of guessing.

Step 5 - Audit Citation Claims

Read references/citation-claim-audit.md for full guidance.

For each citation context, classify what the prose asks the citation to support:

• background fact
• prior method existence
• closest related work
• empirical result
• theoretical result
• dataset or benchmark
• negative claim or limitation
• comparison or state-of-the-art claim

Then check whether the cited paper actually supports that role. For high-risk claims, inspect the abstract, introduction, method/result section, and if needed the PDF.

High-risk contexts:

• "first", "only", "state-of-the-art", "significantly", "provably", "guarantees"
• claims about a paper's results or limitations
• citations used to justify a baseline choice
• citations used for theory assumptions
• citations in contribution bullets or problem motivation

Do not silently rewrite scientific claims. If a citation does not support a claim, propose one of:

• replace citation
• weaken claim
• add a more specific citation
• move the claim to related work
• mark as needing author confirmation

Step 6 - Fix Safe Issues

Safe auto-fixes:

• add missing .bib extension resolution in the report
• remove obvious duplicate BibTeX entries only after confirming they are truly identical
• normalize capitalization braces in titles
• add missing DOI/arXiv/URL fields when verified
• fix BibTeX field spelling
• rename labels or citation keys only if all TeX call sites are updated consistently

Never auto-fix:

• citation claims whose support is ambiguous
• substitution of one cited paper for another without explaining the scientific difference
• venue status when multiple versions exist
• author order if sources disagree

For any edit, keep the smallest possible diff.

Step 7 - Write the Audit Report

Use references/report-template.md.

The final report should include:

• files checked
• local TeX/BibTeX graph status
• metadata verification status
• citation-claim support status
• blocking fixes required before submission
• recommended non-blocking cleanup
• unresolved items requiring author judgment

If the user asks for a saved report and gives no path, use:

docs/reports/citation_audit_YYYY-MM-DD.md

Step 8 - Final Sanity Check

Before finalizing:

• all cited keys resolve to exactly one BibTeX entry
• all required TeX references resolve to exactly one label
• blocking citation/reference problems are tracked as actions when project memory exists

Step 9 - Write Back to Project Memory

If the project uses research-project-memory, update:

• memory/risk-board.md: blocking or important citation, metadata, label, reference, or citation-claim risks
• memory/action-board.md: concrete fixes for missing keys, metadata corrections, unsupported claims, or broken refs
• memory/claim-board.md: claims that must be weakened because citations do not support them
• paper/.agent/paper-status.md: citation-audit status and unresolved author decisions

Use observed for deterministic TeX/BibTeX graph findings and needs-verification for metadata or claim-support issues not fully checked.

• every blocking metadata issue is fixed or explicitly listed
• high-risk citation claims have been audited
• unresolved citation correctness questions are not hidden
• the final answer distinguishes deterministic script findings from web/semantic verification findings