citation-audit

name	citation-audit
description	Zero-context verification that every bibliographic entry in the paper is real, correctly attributed, and used in a context the cited paper actually supports. Uses a fresh cross-model reviewer with web/DBLP/arXiv lookup to catch hallucinated authors, wrong years, fabricated venues, version mismatches, and wrong-context citations (cite present but the cited paper does not establish the claim). Use when user says "审查引用", "check citations", "citation audit", "verify references", "引用核对", or before submission to ensure bibliography integrity.
argument-hint	[paper-directory-or-bib-file] [--uncited] [— soft-only]
allowed-tools	Bash(*), Read, Grep, Glob, Edit, Write, Agent, mcp__codex__codex, WebSearch, WebFetch

Citation Audit

Verify every \cite{...} in a paper against three independent layers:

1. Existence — the cited paper actually exists at the claimed arXiv ID / DOI / venue.
2. Metadata correctness — author names, year, venue, and title match canonical sources (DBLP, arXiv, ACL Anthology, Nature, OpenReview, etc.).
3. Context appropriateness — the cited paper actually supports the claim it is being used to support in the manuscript.

This skill is the fourth layer of \aris{}'s evidence-and-claim assurance, complementing experiment-audit (code), result-to-claim (science verdict), and paper-claim-audit (numerical claims). Together they form a bottom-up integrity stack from raw evaluation code to manuscript bibliography.

When to Use This Skill

Run before submission. The right gating point is:

• After paper-write has produced the LaTeX draft and bib file
• After paper-claim-audit has verified numerical claims
• Before final paper-compile for submission

Do not run this on a half-written draft — most of the work is in cross-checking each \cite against context, which is wasted on placeholder text.

What This Skill Catches

The dangerous citation problems are not wildly fake citations — those are easy to spot. The dangerous ones are:

• Wrong-context citations: real paper, but the cited claim is not what that paper actually establishes (e.g., citing Self-Refine to support "self-feedback produces correlated errors" — Self-Refine actually argues the opposite).
• Author hallucinations: anonymous-author placeholders that slipped through, missing co-authors, wrong order.
• Title drift: arXiv v1 vs v3 with different titles silently merged.
• Venue confusion: arXiv preprint cited but the official venue is now CVPR/ICML/NeurIPS — using the wrong record.
• Year mismatch: arXiv 2023 preprint with 2024 conference acceptance, year reported inconsistently.
• Phantom DOIs: DOI looks real but does not resolve.
• Self-citation drift: your own prior work cited with year off by one.

Constants

• REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.4 — Used via Codex MCP. Default for cross-model review with web access.
• CONTEXT_POLICY = fresh — Each audit run uses a new reviewer thread (REVIEWER_BIAS_GUARD). Never codex-reply.
• WEB_SEARCH = required — The reviewer must perform real web/DBLP/arXiv lookups, not pattern-match from memory.
• OUTPUT = CITATION_AUDIT.md — Human-readable per-entry verdict report.
• STATE = CITATION_AUDIT.json — Machine-readable verdict ledger consumable by downstream tools.
• SOFT_ONLY = false — When true (set via — soft-only / — soft_only flag), the audit runs all three layers normally but forbids any .bib file mutation. Findings that would otherwise mutate the bib (FIX / REPLACE / REMOVE) are translated into per-occurrence sentence-rewrite proposals against the citing *.tex files. Used by /resubmit-pipeline Phase 1 to honor the user's hard "freeze the bib" constraint.

Workflow

Step 1: Discover bib file and section files

Locate:

• references.bib (or paper.bib / similar) under the paper directory
• All *.tex files containing \cite{...} calls (typically sec/ or sections/)

If multiple bib files exist, audit each separately.

Step 2: Extract all (cite-key, context) pairs

For each \cite{key1,key2,...} invocation in the paper:

• Record the cite key
• Record the file + line number
• Record the surrounding sentence (≥ 1 full sentence around the cite, for context check)

Output a flat list of (key, file, line, surrounding_sentence) tuples.

Also build the inverse: for each bib entry, the list of all places it is cited.

Define two protocol sets used throughout the rest of the workflow: cited_keys is the set of unique cite keys appearing in any \cite{...} invocation across the audited *.tex files (de-duplicated), and bib_keys is the set of keys parsed from the audited bib file(s). cited_keys drives Step 3 (audit only cited entries); bib_keys \ cited_keys is the uncited residual surfaced by the --uncited opt-in.

If the user passed --uncited, also compute the set difference bib_keys \ cited_keys here and stash it for use in Steps 5 and the JSON aggregation; see "Uncited Entry Detection (opt-in)" below for the protocol. The set-diff is a string operation only and does not consume reviewer budget.

Save the extracted contexts to paper/.aris/citation-audit/contexts.txt so the reviewer can read it directly. Use the paper-dir-relative path .aris/citation-audit/contexts.txt when recording the file in audited_input_hashes; do not stage under /tmp or other transient locations that the verifier cannot rehash later.

Step 3: Send each entry to fresh cross-model reviewer

For each cited bib entry — i.e., each key in cited_keys with at least one extracted citation context — invoke mcp__codex__codex (NOT codex-reply — fresh thread per entry, or batch with explicit per-entry isolation). Do not send entries in bib_keys \ cited_keys to the reviewer; those are detect-only and surface only when --uncited is explicitly enabled (see "Uncited Entry Detection" below).

mcp__codex__codex:
  model: gpt-5.4
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  sandbox: read-only
  prompt: |
    You are auditing a bibliographic entry. Use web/DBLP/arXiv search.

    ## Bib entry
    @article{key2024example,
      author = {...}, title = {...}, journal = {...}, year = {...}, ...
    }

    ## Where this entry is cited in the paper
    [paste extracted contexts]

    For this entry, verify:
    1. EXISTENCE: does this paper exist at the claimed arXiv ID / DOI / venue?
       Output: YES / NO / UNCERTAIN, with the verifying URL.
    2. METADATA: are author names, year, venue, title correct?
       For each, output: correct / wrong: should be ... / typo: ...
    3. CONTEXT: for each use, does the cited paper actually support the surrounding claim?
       Output per-use: SUPPORTS / WEAK / WRONG, with one-sentence reasoning.

    VERDICT: KEEP / FIX / REPLACE / REMOVE
    - KEEP: entry is clean, all uses are appropriate
    - FIX: metadata needs correction; uses are appropriate
    - REPLACE: cite is wrong-context, find a different paper that actually supports the claim
    - REMOVE: entry is hallucinated or unsupportable

    Be honest. If you cannot verify online, say UNCERTAIN; do not guess.

Save the response to .aris/traces/citation-audit/<date>_runNN/<key>.md per the review-tracing protocol.

Step 4: Aggregate verdicts

Build CITATION_AUDIT.json following the schema defined in "Submission Artifact Emission" below (single authoritative schema for this file). Per-entry ledger data goes under details.per_entry, not under a top-level entries field. The top-level verdict is a single overall value (PASS / WARN / FAIL / NOT_APPLICABLE / BLOCKED / ERROR) derived from per-entry verdicts per the decision table in "Submission Artifact Emission"; the top-level summary is a one-line human-readable string.

Concretely, details carries the per-entry ledger:

"details": {
  "total_entries": 29,
  "counts": { "KEEP": 11, "FIX": 14, "REPLACE": 3, "REMOVE": 1 },
  "per_entry": [
    {
      "key": "lu2024aiscientist",
      "verdict": "KEEP",
      "axis_failures": [],
      "uses": [
        {"file": "sections/1.intro.tex", "line": 11, "verdict": "SUPPORTS"},
        {"file": "sections/6.related.tex", "line": 8, "verdict": "SUPPORTS"}
      ]
    },
    {
      "key": "madaan2023selfrefine",
      "verdict": "FIX",
      "axis_failures": ["CONTEXT"],
      "uses": [
        {"file": "sections/2.overview.tex", "line": 42, "verdict": "WRONG",
         "note": "Self-Refine demonstrates iterative improvement, not correlated errors"},
        {"file": "sections/6.related.tex", "line": 13, "verdict": "SUPPORTS"}
      ]
    }
  ]
}

See "Submission Artifact Emission" for the full artifact (top-level fields audit_skill, verdict, reason_code, summary, audited_input_hashes, trace_path, thread_id, reviewer_model, reviewer_reasoning, generated_at, details).

Step 5: Generate human-readable report

Write CITATION_AUDIT.md:

# Citation Audit Report

**Date**: 2026-04-19
**Bib file(s)**: references.bib
**Total entries**: 29

## Summary
| Verdict | Count |
|---------|------|
| KEEP    | 11   |
| FIX     | 14   |
| REPLACE | 3    |
| REMOVE  | 1    |

## Priority Fixes (CRITICAL — apply before submission)

### REMOVE: anon2025placeholder
- Author listed as "Anonymous" — canonical record exists with real authors and full title
- Title is incomplete
- ACTION: Replace key with the canonical citekey, update authors and title

### REPLACE-CONTEXT: example2023priorwork in sec/2.overview.tex:42
- Cited to support a specific technical claim
- The cited paper actually demonstrates a different (related but distinct) phenomenon
- ACTION: Rewrite the sentence; cite the prior work for what it actually establishes

[... continues for each entry ...]

## All-Clean Entries (no action needed)

[list of KEEP keys]

When --uncited is set, append the following section after "All-Clean Entries":

## Uncited Entries (opt-in)

The following bib entries are present in the audited bib file(s) but are not referenced by any `\cite{...}` in the paper body:

- `author2010example` — suggestion: prune (uncited; no local evidence of intent)
- `someone2015othercite` — suggestion: prune (uncited; no local evidence of intent)
- `third2024todo` — suggestion: check (a `% TODO: cite third2024todo` comment was found in `sections/3.related.tex`)

This section is detect-only; it does not change the top-level verdict.

Step 6: Apply fixes (interactive)

For each FIX/REPLACE/REMOVE verdict, prompt the user:

Fix [key]?
  Change: <description of change>
  Files affected: references.bib + sec/X.tex:Y
[Apply / Skip / Defer]

If AUTO_APPLY = true, apply all FIX-level changes (metadata corrections only). REPLACE and REMOVE always require human approval — they involve content changes.

Step 7: Recompile and verify

latexmk -C && latexmk -pdf -interaction=nonstopmode main.tex

Confirm:

• No new Citation undefined warnings
• No Reference undefined warnings
• Page count unchanged or only minimally affected by metadata fixes

Uncited Entry Detection (opt-in)

Default: disabled. Existing users see no behavior change — only \cite{...} keys are audited, and bib entries with no \cite reference in the manuscript are silently ignored.

Opt-in: pass --uncited on invocation. The skill then performs a set-diff after Step 2 and reports bib entries that appear in any audited bib file(s) but are not cited anywhere in the paper. Detect-only — uncited entries are not sent to the cross-model reviewer, so there is no extra reviewer/web-lookup cost.

Why opt-in

This skill's headline output is the three-axis audit on cited entries. Surfacing uncited bib entries by default would (a) change long-form output for every existing run, and (b) noise up the verdict for users who intentionally maintain a superset bib file (e.g., shared lab bib, in-progress section reorder where the cite has been removed but the entry intentionally retained). The flag preserves zero behavior change for existing callers.

Effect when enabled

When --uncited is set:

• CITATION_AUDIT.md gains a ## Uncited Entries (opt-in) section listing the keys with a one-line suggestion each: prune (entry is dead weight; recommend deleting) or check (entry might be intentional; flag for user review). Default suggestion is prune; only emit check when there is concrete local evidence (e.g., a TODO comment in a .tex file mentioning the key, or a recently removed \cite visible in git diff). Do not infer intent from the bib key string alone.
• CITATION_AUDIT.json details gains an uncited_entries array; see "Submission Artifact Emission" below for the schema.
• The top-level verdict is unchanged: uncited entries do not upgrade or downgrade the PASS / WARN / FAIL / etc. classification. The reason_code and summary are likewise unchanged in shape; only the details.uncited_entries field appears.
• Verifier gates and downstream skills (paper-writing Phase 6, tools/verify_paper_audits.sh) MUST NOT treat the presence of uncited_entries as a blocking signal.

When opt-in is appropriate

• Pre-submission cleanup (drop dead bib entries before sharing camera-ready ZIP).
• Shared lab bib file where the paper uses a subset and the user wants to confirm what is in scope.
• Recurring audits where the user has previously seen the uncited count and wants to track whether it changed.

Fallback when bib enumeration fails

If --uncited is enabled but full bib-key enumeration fails (e.g., malformed bib syntax that the parser cannot recover), the cited-entry audit must still proceed if at all possible. In that case:

• Do not alter the top-level verdict, reason_code, or summary.
• Emit details.uncited_entries as an empty array [].
• Add details.uncited_entries_status: "unavailable" plus a one-line note explaining why (e.g., "bib parser could not enumerate keys; cited-entry audit completed normally").
• Verifier gates and downstream skills MUST treat unavailable the same as the field being absent: not blocking.

If the bib file cannot be read well enough to audit even the cited entries, fall back to the existing BLOCKED / bib_unreadable path defined in the verdict decision table; this is the same behavior as the no-flag default.

Key Rules

• Fresh reviewer thread per audit run — never reuse prior review context
• Web access required — the reviewer must do real lookups, not memory pattern-match
• Wrong-context > metadata — a real paper used to support a wrong claim is more dangerous than a typo in author name
• REPLACE/REMOVE require human approval — never auto-modify content claims
• Always emit, never block — this skill always writes CITATION_AUDIT.json with a verdict; the decision to block finalization lives in paper-writing Phase 6 + tools/verify_paper_audits.sh, driven by the assurance level. See "Submission Artifact Emission" below.
• Run once per submission — the audit is wall-clock expensive (web lookups for each entry); not for every save
• Uncited detection is opt-in only — never auto-enable; never block on uncited entries; existing callers must observe identical output if they do not pass --uncited
• Under --soft-only, citation-audit emits text-rewrite proposals only; bib files are never mutated regardless of finding severity. The audit semantics (existence + metadata + context) and the per-entry KEEP/FIX/REPLACE/REMOVE ledger are preserved verbatim; only the action layer is translated to per-occurrence sentence rewrites in the citing *.tex files. Refuse any downstream-proposed bib edit while --soft-only is set.

Comparison with Other Audit Skills

Skill	What it audits	What it catches
/experiment-audit	Evaluation code	Fake ground truth, self-normalized scores, phantom results
/result-to-claim	Result-to-claim mapping	Claims unsupported by evidence
/paper-claim-audit	Numerical claims in manuscript	Number inflation, best-seed cherry-pick, config mismatch
/citation-audit	Bibliographic entries	Hallucinated refs, wrong-context citations, metadata errors

Together: code → result → numerical claim → cited claim. Each layer has cross-family review with no executor in the validator path.

Known Limitations

• DBLP coverage gap: very recent papers (< 2 weeks) may not yet be in DBLP. Reviewer should fall back to arXiv.
• Pre-print vs published: when both exist, reviewer should prefer the published venue (ICML 2024 over arXiv 2401.xxxxx) but flag both.
• Anthology vs OpenReview: NeurIPS/ICLR papers have OpenReview entries before official proceedings; both are valid sources.
• Multi-author truncation: bib entries with 6+ authors using and others are conventional and not flagged unless the truncation hides a co-author the user explicitly cares about.

Review Tracing

After each mcp__codex__codex reviewer call, save the trace following shared-references/review-tracing.md. Use tools/save_trace.sh or write files directly to .aris/traces/citation-audit/<date>_run<NN>/. Respect the --- trace: parameter (default: full).

Output Contract

• CITATION_AUDIT.md (human-readable report) at paper root
• CITATION_AUDIT.json (machine-readable ledger; schema below) at paper root
• .aris/traces/citation-audit/<date>_runNN/ (per-entry review traces)
• Optional: applied fixes to references.bib + sec/*.tex (with --apply flag)
• Optional: details.uncited_entries field in JSON + ## Uncited Entries (opt-in) MD section (with --uncited flag; field absent and section omitted when flag is unset)

Optional: Soft-Only Mode (— soft-only)

Default: disabled. The audit emits the standard KEEP / FIX / REPLACE / REMOVE per-entry verdicts and a downstream caller (or the --apply path of Step 6) is free to mutate the bib.

Opt-in: pass — soft-only (also accepts — soft_only) on invocation. This mode is designed for callers — notably /resubmit-pipeline Phase 1 — that operate under a hard "freeze the bib" constraint: if a citation is wrong-context, soften the surrounding sentence; do not change, add, or remove the cite itself.

What soft-only changes

The audit semantics are unchanged: existence + metadata + context-appropriateness checks all run, the reviewer is still invoked once per cited entry, and the per-entry KEEP/FIX/REPLACE/REMOVE verdicts are still computed and emitted exactly as in default mode. Only the action layer changes — soft-only translates each base verdict into a text-rewrite proposal instead of a bib mutation.

Verdict translation table

Base verdict	Soft-only translation	Notes
KEEP	keep_unchanged	No action. Cite + sentence are both fine.
FIX (metadata wrong)	keep_metadata_drift_acknowledged	Bib stays as-is. Flag for human review at submission time. Append note: "metadata drift detected but not fixed under --soft-only".
REPLACE (wrong-context cite)	soften_citing_sentence	Per-occurrence sentence-rewrite proposal. For each \cite{X} in the body, locate the surrounding sentence and propose a softened version that does not claim what X actually establishes.
REMOVE (cite refers to nonexistent paper — i.e., hallucinated citation)	drop_cite_in_body_only	The bib entry is left untouched (per the --soft-only invariant), but the inline \cite{X} references in the body MUST be removed and the surrounding sentence rewritten so it no longer relies on a nonexistent paper. Two sub-strategies the rewriter may use: (a) drop the inline \cite{X} entirely and rephrase the sentence to remove the load-bearing claim, OR (b) re-attribute to a different in-bib source that genuinely supports the claim. Never leave a \cite{X} to a hallucinated paper in the body — that is a worse failure mode than removing the cite, because reviewers will check the reference and find nothing. The bib entry itself stays (it's harmless once not cited; the verifier's uncited-detection at submission time will surface it for cleanup outside this audit).

Augmented JSON schema (under --soft-only)

When the flag is set, the standard top-level fields (audit_skill, verdict, reason_code, summary, etc.) and the existing details.per_entry ledger are emitted exactly as in default mode. In addition:

• A top-level soft_only_mode: true boolean is added.
• details gains a soft_only_actions array — one entry per audited bib key, in the same order as details.per_entry.

{
  "audit_skill": "citation-audit",
  "verdict": "...",
  "soft_only_mode": true,
  "details": {
    "soft_only_actions": [
      {
        "citekey": "smith2023example",
        "base_verdict": "REPLACE",
        "soft_action": "soften_citing_sentence",
        "occurrences": [
          {
            "file": "sec/3.method.tex",
            "line": 142,
            "current_sentence": "Smith et al. [2023] proves a generic result that...",
            "proposed_rewrite": "Smith et al. [2023] discusses a related setting; while not directly applicable, the framing motivates...",
            "rationale": "Original sentence claims smith2023 'proves' a result, but smith2023 actually only conjectures it. Softened to 'discusses ... motivates' to remove the unsupported claim."
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}

soft_action is one of keep_unchanged | keep_metadata_drift_acknowledged | soften_citing_sentence | drop_cite_in_body_only. For keep_unchanged and keep_metadata_drift_acknowledged, occurrences MAY be omitted or emitted as []. For soften_citing_sentence and drop_cite_in_body_only, occurrences MUST list one object per \cite{X} site in the body that triggered the verdict.

For drop_cite_in_body_only, the proposed_rewrite field shows the sentence with the inline \cite{X} removed (or replaced by a \cite{Y} to an alternate in-bib source). The bib_entry_action field is fixed to "leave_as_is_per_soft_only" — the bib record itself is never modified by the audit.

Augmented human-readable report

CITATION_AUDIT.md gains a new section ## Soft-Only Rewrites (— soft-only mode) listing each occurrence with the proposed sentence rewrite for human approval. Example:

## Soft-Only Rewrites (— soft-only mode)

The bib file is frozen. The following sentence rewrites are proposed in lieu of bib edits.

### `smith2023example` — base verdict REPLACE → `soften_citing_sentence`

- **File**: `sec/3.method.tex:142`
- **Current**: "Smith et al. [2023] proves a generic result that..."
- **Proposed**: "Smith et al. [2023] discusses a related setting; while not directly applicable, the framing motivates..."
- **Rationale**: Original sentence claims smith2023 "proves" a result, but smith2023 actually only conjectures it. Softened to "discusses ... motivates" to remove the unsupported claim.

The existing per-entry verdict table in the Summary block is kept but FIX/REPLACE/REMOVE rows are annotated with a 🔒 bib frozen by --soft-only badge so downstream readers see immediately why the bib was not mutated.

Hard guarantees under --soft-only

• No .bib file mutations under any circumstance. Step 6 ("Apply fixes (interactive)") is bypassed for the bib file; only *.tex rewrite proposals are produced (and still require human approval before any text edit).
• If a downstream caller — including paper-writing Phase 6 or any wrapper — proposes a bib edit while --soft-only is set, refuse it: emit a one-line refusal in the trace and continue to the next finding.
• The top-level verdict decision table is unchanged: a wrong-context cite still produces FAIL with reason_code: wrong_context. Soft-only does not silence the finding; it only constrains the action layer.
• --soft-only composes with --uncited: both flags can be set together. Uncited entries remain detect-only and are not subject to soft-only translation (there is no citing sentence to soften).

Submission Artifact Emission

This skill always writes paper/CITATION_AUDIT.json, regardless of caller or detector outcome. A paper with no .bib file or no \cite{...} usage emits verdict NOT_APPLICABLE; silent skip is forbidden. paper-writing Phase 6 and tools/verify_paper_audits.sh both rely on this artifact existing at a predictable path.

The artifact conforms to the schema in shared-references/assurance-contract.md:

{
  "audit_skill":      "citation-audit",
  "verdict":          "PASS | WARN | FAIL | NOT_APPLICABLE | BLOCKED | ERROR",
  "reason_code":      "all_entries_keep | metadata_drift | wrong_context | hallucinated | ...",
  "summary":          "One-line human-readable verdict summary.",
  "audited_input_hashes": {
    "references.bib":             "sha256:...",
    "main.tex":                   "sha256:...",
    "sections/3.related.tex":     "sha256:..."
  },
  "trace_path":       ".aris/traces/citation-audit/<date>_run<NN>/",
  "thread_id":        "<codex mcp thread id>",
  "reviewer_model":   "gpt-5.4",
  "reviewer_reasoning": "xhigh",
  "generated_at":     "<UTC ISO-8601>",
  "details": {
    "total_entries":  <int>,                 // count of audited cited entries (= |cited_keys|), NOT the bib-file size
    "per_entry":      [ { "key": "madaan2023selfrefine",
                          "verdict": "KEEP | FIX | REPLACE | REMOVE",
                          "axis_failures": [ "CONTEXT" | "METADATA" | "EXISTENCE" ],
                          "note": "..." }, ... ]
  }
}

Optional: details.uncited_entries (only when --uncited is set)

"details": {
  ...
  "uncited_entries": [
    {"key": "<bibkey>", "suggestion": "prune" | "check", "note": "..."}
  ],
  "uncited_entries_status": "ok" | "unavailable"
}

Field semantics:

• Both fields are omitted entirely when the flag is not set. The default schema does not include either key.
• When the flag is set and the set-diff completes normally, uncited_entries_status is "ok" and uncited_entries lists the detected keys (possibly empty if every bib entry is cited).
• When the flag is set but bib-key enumeration fails (per "Fallback when bib enumeration fails" above), uncited_entries_status is "unavailable" and uncited_entries is []. Downstream consumers MUST treat "unavailable" identically to the field being absent: not blocking.
• Downstream consumers MUST treat absence of either field as the only valid default state and MUST NOT raise on missing.
• suggestion is advisory only; the verifier and paper-writing Phase 6 do not block on it.

audited_input_hashes scope

Hash the declared input set actually passed to this audit: the .bib file, main.tex, and every sections/*.tex file that supplied citation contexts. Do NOT hash extracted contexts from /tmp or other transient paths — if you need to stage extracted contexts, materialize them under paper/.aris/ so the verifier can rehash reproducibly. Do NOT hash repo-wide unions or the reviewer's self-reported opened subset.

Path convention (must match tools/verify_paper_audits.sh): keys are paths relative to the paper directory (no paper/ prefix — the verifier already resolves relative to the paper dir; prefixing produces paper/paper/... and false-fails as STALE). Use absolute paths for any file outside the paper dir.

Verdict decision table

Input state	Verdict	reason_code example
No .bib file or no \cite{...} usage	NOT_APPLICABLE	no_citations
.bib file referenced but unreadable / missing	BLOCKED	bib_unreadable
Every entry KEEP, all three axes green	PASS	all_entries_keep
Only FIX verdicts (metadata drift, no context errors)	WARN	metadata_drift
Any REPLACE or REMOVE (wrong-context or hallucinated entry)	FAIL	wrong_context
Web lookups timed out / reviewer invocation failed	ERROR	reviewer_error

The --uncited flag does not appear in this table: uncited entries are advisory only and never alter the top-level verdict or reason_code. They surface exclusively through details.uncited_entries and the optional MD section.

Thread independence

Every invocation uses a fresh mcp__codex__codex thread. Never codex-reply. Do not accept prior audit outputs (PROOF_AUDIT, PAPER_CLAIM_AUDIT, EXPERIMENT_LOG) as input — the fresh thread preserves reviewer independence per shared-references/reviewer-independence.md.

This skill never blocks by itself; paper-writing Phase 6 plus the verifier decide whether the verdict blocks finalization based on the assurance level.

See Also

• /paper-claim-audit — sibling skill for numerical claim verification
• /experiment-audit — sibling skill for evaluation code integrity
• /result-to-claim — claim verdict assignment from results
• shared-references/citation-discipline.md — protocol document for citation hygiene
• shared-references/reviewer-independence.md — cross-model review constraints