| name | fecim-citation |
| description | Verifies and formats FeCIM physics/measurement claims against the project's published-source list and docs/4-research/honesty-audit.md. Use when adding a numeric claim, accuracy figure, or device-parameter assertion to code, docs, PR descriptions, or commit messages. |
fecim-citation
Validate any quantitative or device-physics claim before it lands in code, docs, or commit messages. See tools/fecim-skills/_shared/fecim-context.md (Honesty-audit policy) for the rule list.
Workflow
-
Parse the claim. Extract: subject (e.g., HZO coercive field), value (e.g., 1.0 MV/cm), context (educational vs validated).
-
Match to canonical sources (tools/fecim-skills/_shared/fecim-context.md table) and the current source/audit files (docs/4-research/honesty-audit.md, references/, and citations/ if present). If the claim corresponds to a published source, format as:
<claim text> (Materlik 2015)
-
Check honesty-audit removed/unverified list:
- "30 analog states" presented as device fact → REPHRASE: "30 analog conductance levels (configurable simulation default)".
- "87% MNIST accuracy" as a FeCIM device claim → REMOVE; if discussing reservoir computing instead, attribute to HZO FTJ 2025 paper at 98.24% and label "not a FeCIM device claim".
- Energy multipliers vs NAND/GPUs without measurement evidence → REMOVE or replace with literature-backed comparison.
-
For uncited claims, suggest one of:
- Add the citation if a published source exists.
- Reframe as "simulation default" with the project's standard wording.
- Block the claim if no source and no educational framing applies.
-
Output:
Claim: <as written>
Status: verified | educational-default | removed-unverified | needs-source
Suggested wording: <if change needed>
Citation: <short form, DOI or source path if applicable>
Evidence boundary: <what the source verifies and what it does not verify>
Verification
- Input: "Add 'Our simulator achieves 87% MNIST accuracy' to README.md."
Expected: status
removed-unverified; suggested wording reframes as the simulation pipeline's accuracy with explicit educational label, OR points to HZO FTJ 2025's 98.24% with "not a FeCIM device claim" caveat.
TDD
Citation review is observation — TDD: N/A. Code/doc edits triggered by review follow the project's TDD hard-rule per tools/fecim-skills/_shared/tdd-evidence-template.md.
