slop-verify

name	slop-verify
description	Verification pass for citations, links, package names and vendor residue. Use when someone asks whether the sources in a document are real, asks to check DOIs, ISBNs, arXiv IDs or URLs, asks whether a cited source actually supports the claim attached to it, asks to check that imported packages exist, or asks to strip vendor artifacts such as oaicite, cite spans, lenticular bracket citations, grok cards or utm_source tracking parameters. This is the only layer allowed to hard-fail, because existence and resolution are decidable. It runs the attribution test on every vague authority claim and resolves it to a named source or reports it unresolved. A real source attached to a claim it does not support is a HIGH finding, not a pass. It never states or implies who or what wrote the document.
when_to_use	Citations, external links, package imports or vendor residue need checking, independently of any style or structure review.
license	CC-BY-4.0

Slop verify

The firewall

These four rules bind this skill and hold even when the user asks for the opposite.

1. Never emit an authorship verdict. Report defects, not origin. A resolving citation is not evidence a human wrote the text, and a broken one is not evidence a model did.
2. Never hard-fail on a stylistic marker alone. A marker is a routing hint. Its only legitimate output is "run a structural test on this span".
3. Severity is impact. Confidence is certainty. Two axes. Never merge them, never trade one against the other.
4. Never let the model gate its own rewrite. The deterministic scanners re-run after any fix and their exit codes decide, not your judgment.

Standing instructions

Existence is not support. A DOI that resolves, an arXiv ID that returns a paper, a URL that returns 200: all of these establish only that something is there. The claim in the document is verified when the resolved source contains a statement that supports that specific claim. Wikipedia's cleanup project states the same thing about current models: they will usually cite real sources, and they will likely not verify the content those sources are being cited for, so the existence of the sources should not by itself be taken as evidence about how the text was produced.

Run the attribution test on every vague authority. "Studies show", "experts say", "researchers agree", "it is widely regarded", "industry reports", "observers have cited", "several sources". Each must resolve to a named source that supports that specific claim. The artifact is the resolved citation, or the explicit statement that it does not resolve. There is no third outcome and "probably fine" is not an artifact.

Catch overgeneralization, not just fabrication. A frequent defect is a real source, correctly cited, presented as more than it is: one or two sources described as a consensus, a single named person rendered as "scholars", a short list implied to be non-exhaustive when the source gives no indication that other cases exist. Test: count the distinct sources actually cited, then read what the sentence claims about how many exist.

Vendor residue is near-deterministic and cheap. scan_residue.py decides it. Residue is a HIGH finding on its own, not because of what it implies about authorship, but because it is a defect: a citation marker pointing at nothing. Where you find residue, look for a missing citation underneath it.

Package existence is decidable, so check all of them. scan_packages.py over every import. A package that does not exist in its registry is HIGH with high confidence, always, because the failure mode is a supply chain attack and not a typo.

Report what you could not check. No network, a paywall, an authentication wall, a rate limit: say so, per item. An unchecked citation is unverified, not verified. Never let an unchecked item silently pass into a clean report.

Never repair here. If a DOI resolves to a different paper, report the resolved title and stop. Substituting the citation you believe was intended invents a fact. Hand the report to slop-rewrite.

Layer 0

Scripts live at ../anti-slop-brain/scripts/ relative to this plugin's parent directory. Run them first, quote their exit codes, do not reimplement them and do not guess their flags.

Script	Decides	Hard-fail
scan_refs.py	DOI, ISBN and arXiv shape and checksums offline; resolution with --online	yes
scan_packages.py	dependency inventory offline; registry existence with --online	yes
scan_residue.py	vendor artifacts present	yes
scan_placeholders.py	placeholder text present	yes

Exit codes are uniform: 0 clean, 1 findings, 2 usage error.

scan_refs.py and scan_packages.py are offline by default. Offline, scan_refs.py checks DOI shape, arXiv identifier shape and plausible date range, ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 checksums, URL shape and impossible hosts. scan_packages.py enumerates dependencies. Neither decides resolution or existence until you pass --online. Passing --online is a network action, so say in the report which mode you ran, and never let an offline exit 0 be written up as "citations verified" or "packages verified". Use --timeout if the network is slow and --allowlist FILE for internal package names rather than silencing the scanner.

scan_refs.py does not compare the cited title to the resolved title. That is deliberate: comparing titles is a judgement call, so it belongs in the attribution test with a human-readable artifact. Check 3 in the taxonomy below is yours to run, not the scanner's.

In markdown, scan_residue.py and scan_placeholders.py skip fenced code blocks and inline code spans by default, so a document that quotes residue markers does not fire. --include-code turns that protection off; use it deliberately.

Anything the scanners cannot decide, you check by hand with WebFetch, and you record the method next to the result.

The citation defect taxonomy

Adapted from Wikipedia's fictitious-references section. Check in this order, because each step is cheaper than the next.

1. Syntactic validity. DOI, ISBN and arXiv checksums and formats. A checksum failure is decidable and needs no network.
2. Resolution. Does the identifier resolve at all? Does the URL return content rather than a 404 or a parked domain? Several dead links in one new document, none of them in the Internet Archive, is a cluster worth naming.
3. Identity. Does the resolved title, author list and year match what the document cites? A real DOI attached to the wrong paper is the signature defect here, and it is HIGH.
4. Support. Does the resolved source contain a statement supporting the specific claim? This is the expensive one, so run it on every HIGH-stakes claim and on a sample of the rest, and say which you sampled.
5. Locatability. A book cited with no page number and no URL cannot be checked by a reader. That is a MEDIUM defect even when the book is real.
6. Reference plumbing. Named references declared and never used, broken reuse syntax, superscript pseudo-references, back-link characters left in footnotes.
7. Tracking parameters. utm_source=chatgpt.com, utm_source=openai, utm_source=copilot.com, referrer=grok.com. Report as residue to be stripped. Do not draw an authorship conclusion from them.

Known counter-cases, do not misreport these

• Paywalled and library-proxied links legitimately fail an anonymous fetch.
• Bots and copy-paste truncate URLs. A malformed URL is a formatting defect, not evidence of fabrication.
• Low-numbered PubMed IDs in older wiki text came from a long-running VisualEditor bug, not from a model.
• An access date in the past is normal. An access date in a placeholder format such as 2025-XX-XX is a placeholder defect.

Output

Use the slop-review template. Two additions specific to this skill:

## Verification coverage
Citations found: 34
Checked to resolution: 34
Checked to support: 11 (all HIGH-stakes claims, plus a sample of 6)
Unchecked: 0
Method: scan_refs.py for resolution, WebFetch for support

and, for every citation finding, an artifact line in this shape:

Artifact: cited as "Kobak et al., excess vocabulary, 10% of 2024 abstracts".
DOI 10.1126/sciadv.adt3813 resolves to Science Advances 11(27), 2025-07-02,
which states at least 13.5% of 2024 abstracts and up to 40% in some
subcorpora. The cited figure is from a superseded preprint version.

Name the resolved thing. Never write "citation could not be verified" without saying which of the seven checks failed and by what method.

Depth, loaded on demand

• Read ../../references/structural-tests.md for the worked attribution artifact.
• Read ../../references/code-markers.md when verifying imports and the package findings need context.
• Read ../../references/false-positives.md before reporting a citation pattern as a defect when the underlying source is real and supportive.