Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills --skill reference-verifiergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/reference-verifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/reference-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/reference-verifier/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/reference-verifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills/reference-verifier.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.02698 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01349 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00540 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00270 |
Grade A, and why
reference-verifier scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 255 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reference Verifier
Citation verification is a mandatory step before submission. Errors in reference lists undermine credibility and can delay publication. The rise of AI-generated text has introduced a new category of fabricated citations that appear plausible but are entirely non-existent.
Why Reference Verification Is Critical
Accuracy: A single wrong page number, volume, or year signals carelessness to reviewers. Systematic errors suggest fabrication.
Retraction risk: Citing a retracted paper without noting the retraction can constitute a serious integrity breach. Thousands of papers are retracted annually.
AI hallucination: Large language models regularly generate plausible-sounding but entirely fictional citations — correct author names, realistic journal names, plausible years, and fabricated DOIs. These require verification before use.
Orphan and phantom references: Orphan = cited in text but missing from the reference list. Phantom = in the reference list but never cited in the text. Both are submission errors.
Self-citation ethics: Excessive self-citation is flagged by editors. Cite your own work only when directly relevant, not routinely.
Reference Error Types
| Error Type | Description | How to Detect | How to Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI hallucination | Entirely fabricated citation that does not exist | Search DOI + title in CrossRef/Google Scholar | Remove; find a real source or remove the claim |
| Wrong DOI | Doi resolves to a different paper | Resolve doi.org/[DOI] in browser | Locate correct DOI via CrossRef |
| Wrong page range | Listed pages differ from published article | Check via DOI or journal website | Correct from journal website |
| Wrong year | Publication year incorrect | CrossRef lookup | Correct from official source |
| Wrong volume/issue | Volume or issue number wrong | Journal website or DOI | Correct from official source |
| Retracted paper | Paper has been retracted post-publication | RetractionWatch; PubMed retraction notices | Remove or replace; if citing, note retraction |
| Author name error | First/last name swapped; misspelled | CrossRef or PubMed lookup | Correct to match published version |
| Missing DOI | DOI not included (increasingly required) | CrossRef.org lookup | Add DOI |
| Orphan citation | Cited in text, absent from reference list | Cross-check text citations vs. list | Add full reference |
| Phantom reference | In reference list, not cited in text | Cross-check list vs. text citations | Remove or add in-text citation |
| Non-existent journal | Journal name does not exist | Google the journal | Flag as likely hallucination; verify source |
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago First seen · 255 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 24bc4fdc7b01
reference-verifier is a skill published in the GitHub repository muhammad1438/academic-writer-skills (6 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,698 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
thesis-control
Use when AI-assisted thesis or manuscript edits risk claim drift, scope creep, loss of intended use, experiment-role promotion, or repeated revisions that fail to converge; provides author-intent control, lightweight or strict contracts, drift audits, revision escalation, and human gates.
manuscript-reframe
Reframe report-like academic drafts into paper-form scientific arguments while preserving or explicitly renegotiating author intent; requires an approved old-versus-proposed spine, evidence and argument baselines, analysis-role control, and post-edit drift review.
argument-governance
Build and audit the manuscript or research-project argument system across intended use, gaps, claims, data, results, experiment roles, contributions, innovation evidence, limitations, and contribution focus. Use when a paper, thesis chapter, review article, or research project needs an explicit argument map…
audit
Check thesis chapters for consistency before submission — contradictory numbers, terminology drift, and broken cross-references.
evidence-review
Build evidence-controlled literature reviews and gap maps with source-status labels, claim registers, citation-role plans, traceability tables, and overclaim audits. Use when drafting or auditing review papers, thesis literature reviews, scoping reviews, or evidence syntheses where adjacent-domain evidence, candidate…
note
Record reading notes to a structured notes file. Use when the user says "take notes" or "record this" during reading sessions.