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 ShaishavMaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills --skill verify-citationsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ShaishavMaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-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/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/verify-citations)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/verify-citations"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/verify-citations/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/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/verify-citations"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shaishavmaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills/verify-citations.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 | $0.00140 | $0.03663 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00056 | $0.01465 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00733 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00366 |
Grade A, and why
verify-citations 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 3d 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 — 242 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verify Citations
The anti-hallucination gate for bibliographies. Takes a .bib file, validates
every entry against live scholarly indexes (Crossref, DBLP, Semantic Scholar,
arXiv, DataCite), and produces a per-entry verdict: VERIFIED, MISMATCH,
UNRESOLVED (possible fabrication), or RETRACTED. One fabricated citation in a
submitted paper can end a review — or a reputation. Be rigorous here.
Resolving is necessary but not sufficient. An identifier that resolves only proves the entry points at a real record — not that it is the right instance of the named work, nor that an independently-added reference is even on-topic. The gate therefore goes beyond resolution with two non-fabricating heuristics: a canonical-instance check (when a title exists as both, say, a conference paper and a later RFC/tech-report/preprint, surface the alternatives with citation counts so you cite the artifact the field cites) and an opt-in relevance gate (score an added reference's topical fit and flag low-fit ones for human review). And when an authoritative index is unreachable, the run reports PARTIAL-PASS, never a clean PASS, naming the checks that did not run — so "could not check" is never mistaken for "checked and clean".
When to use
- The user asks to verify, check, validate, or audit citations / references /
a bibliography / a
.bibfile. - Any writing skill (
draft-related-work,literature-review,write-rebuttal, ...) added or edited citations — run this gate before declaring that work done. - Before
preflight-check/ submission, camera-ready, or arXiv upload. - The user suspects AI-generated references ("are these real papers?").
Inputs
- A
.bibfile (path from the user, or find it:*.bibnext to the main.tex, or the file named in\bibliography{...}/\addbibresource{...}). CONTACT_EMAILenvironment variable — a real email, sent in the User-Agent so API providers can contact instead of block. Ask the user for it if unset; never invent one.- Optional:
S2_API_KEYfor a dedicated Semantic Scholar rate allowance (the shared anonymous pool 429s under load; the script backs off and falls back to other providers automatically).
What ships with it
5 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 3d ago Changed · +9 lines 290c4c5b5985
- 1mo ago First seen · 233 lines · 140 tokens per session scan A d6e96ee70810
verify-citations is a skill published in the GitHub repository ShaishavMaisuria/research-paper-lifecycle-skills (56 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 140 tokens to every session and 3,663 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
research-manager
Use this when starting a new research project or managing a complex, multi-step research workflow.
academic-writing
You must use this when producing any research prose — literature reviews, syntheses, analyses, methodology descriptions, discussion sections, abstracts, or any written output intended for an academic audience.
systematic-review
You must use this when conducting PRISMA-standard systematic reviews, protocol development, or Risk of Bias assessment.
hypothesis-testing
You must use this when formulating testable hypotheses, designing experimental controls, or defining falsification criteria.
peer-review
You must use this when critiquing academic manuscripts, evaluating methodological rigor, or providing structured reviewer feedback.
research-methodology
You must use this when matching research questions to appropriate designs, sampling strategies, or validity controls — or when a research problem is stuck and needs creative reframing (cross-domain analogies, first-principles deconstruction).