claim-check

name	claim-check
description	Walk every substantive claim in a section, classify it (cited / author's-own / common-knowledge / UNSUPPORTED), verify the citation licenses the claim's verb and quantifier, and report supported/overstated/uncited counts
user-invocable	true

Claim Check

Core Rule

Every substantive claim is one of four things: cited, the author's own reasoning/data (stated as such), common knowledge in the field, or UNSUPPORTED. A claim that is none of these does not belong in the manuscript yet. Never fabricate a citation to "fix" an uncited claim — flag it with [CITE] and tell the author what is missing. A plausible-looking reference you cannot point to is a fabrication, not a fix.

This is the flagship skill. It is the manual, source-reading half of verification that a hook cannot do: citation-gate.sh proves a \cite key resolves to a .bib entry; only a reader can prove the entry licenses the sentence.

When to Use

Invoke with /claim-check when:

• A section draft is "done" and you want to know what a skeptical Reviewer 2 would attack.
• You inherited prose (yours or a co-author's) and need to know which sentences are load-bearing but unsourced.
• Before submission, on the Introduction, Results, and Discussion — the three sections where overclaim hides.
• After a revision that added claims, to confirm none slipped in uncited.

Scope it: /claim-check sections/discussion.tex for one section, or name a paragraph. Checking a whole manuscript at once produces a table too long to act on — go section by section.

Process

Phase 1: Establish Ground Truth

Before reading a single claim, load what the section is allowed to assert:

1. Read MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md — the Thesis, the Key sources table (what each .bib key establishes and what it must NOT be overclaimed as), and "Claims that need extra care."
2. Read the target .tex file in full. Do not skim — every declarative sentence is a candidate claim.
3. Read references.bib for the keys this section cites. Note each entry's actual scope: population, matrix, method, sample size, and the strength of its own language (did the source say "associated with" or "causes"?).
4. Open the sources in sources/ for the spine references. If a source PDF/note is not in the library, you cannot verify a claim against it — record that gap; do not assume the claim holds.

If MANUSCRIPT_MAP.md → Key sources says a reference must not be overclaimed a certain way (e.g. "single-turn QA baseline — NOT evidence for multi-turn agentic tasks"), that is a hard constraint for this pass.

Phase 2: Enumerate Claims

Walk the section sentence by sentence. A substantive claim asserts a fact about the world, the literature, or your results that a reader could dispute. Skip pure transitions, definitions you established, and signposting.

For each claim, record: the verb (asserts / shows / suggests / proves / causes / is associated with), the quantifier (all / most / often / in our sample / generally), and any number. Verb and quantifier are where overclaim lives — capture them precisely.

Phase 3: Classify Each Claim

Assign exactly one class:

Class	Definition	Action
CITED	Carries a \cite{key} resolving to references.bib	Verify in Phase 4
AUTHOR'S-OWN	Your data, reasoning, or contribution, stated as such	Check it matches your Results/data; no external cite needed
COMMON-KNOWLEDGE	Uncontested in this venue's audience; needs no cite	Confirm it is genuinely common for this audience (see MANUSCRIPT_MAP → Audience)
UNSUPPORTED	Disputable, not cited, not your data, not common knowledge	Flag [CITE] — needs a source or must be cut/hedged

Discipline on the easy escape hatches:

• "Common knowledge" is audience-relative. For a specialist methods venue, a basic mechanism may be common; for a broad-readership journal it must be cited. When in doubt, it is not common knowledge.
• "Author's-own" must be visibly framed as such ("We observe…", "Our data indicate…"). An unframed assertion sitting next to cited sentences reads as cited — that is a sourcing ambiguity, flag it.

Phase 4: Verify Each CITED Claim Against Its Source

For every cited claim, check the citation actually licenses the verb and the quantifier:

1. Verb strength — the source must support the claim's verb. If the source reports an association and the sentence says "causes," that is OVERSTATED. "suggests" ≠ "proves"; "is consistent with" ≠ "demonstrates."
2. Quantifier / scope — "in general" needs evidence beyond one setting/harness/task type. A single-turn QA result does not license a multi-turn agentic claim. Scope creep is OVERSTATED.
3. Quantity — any number must match the source exactly. A misremembered statistic is a fabrication even with a real cite. If you cannot confirm the number against the source, mark it [VALUE — verify]; do not let it pass.
4. Attribution direction — the cite must support this claim, not a neighbouring one. Watch for a \cite that backs the first half of a sentence while the second half (the actual claim) rides along unsupported.

Outcome per cited claim: SUPPORTED (verb + quantifier + number all licensed) or OVERSTATED (calibrate down).

Phase 5: Report and Prioritize Fixes

Produce the table and a prioritized fix list. Do not edit the manuscript in this skill unless the user asked — claim-check reports; fixing claims (especially adding/removing a cite that carries an argument) is a Protected Claim and needs author sign-off per CLAUDE.md.

Output Format

# Claim Check — sections/discussion.tex

## Summary
- Claims examined: 18
- Supported: 11
- Overstated: 4   (verb/quantifier exceeds the cited evidence)
- Uncited:    3   (UNSUPPORTED — flagged [CITE], NOT fabricated)

## Claim Table
| # | Claim (verb / quantifier) | Class | Cite | Verdict | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "the gate improves tool-call accuracy (in our sample)" | author's-own | — | SUPPORTED | matches Results Tab 2 |
| 2 | "post-hoc self-correction fails on long horizons (causes)" | cited | tooluse2023 | OVERSTATED | source shows association, not causation |
| 3 | "this is the first study of pre-execution gating" | author's-own | — | OVERSTATED | novelty claim with no comparison shown |
| 4 | "LLM agents can hallucinate tool calls" | common-knowledge | — | OK | uncontested for this audience |
| 5 | ">90% tool-call accuracy generally" | cited | tooluse2023 | OVERSTATED | tooluse2023 is single-turn QA; scope creep to multi-turn agentic tasks |
| 6 | "prior survey reports a 23% hallucination rate" | cited | halluc2022 | [VALUE — verify] | number not confirmed against source |
| 7 | "hallucinated tool-call rate scales with task horizon" | UNSUPPORTED | — | [CITE] | disputable, no source, not our data |

## Prioritized Fixes
1. **[Overclaim — Protected]** Claim 2: change "causes" → "is associated with" (tooluse2023 reports association). Needs author approval — verb change on a spine source.
2. **[Overclaim — scope]** Claim 5: restrict to "on single-turn QA (tooluse2023)" or cite a multi-turn agentic source. MANUSCRIPT_MAP flags tooluse2023 as NOT a multi-turn agent benchmark.
3. **[Uncited]** Claim 7: locate a source for horizon-scaling of hallucinated tool calls, or reframe as our own observation if Results support it. Left as [CITE] — not invented.
4. **[Number]** Claim 6: confirm 23% against halluc2022 p.X; resolve [VALUE — verify].
5. **[Novelty]** Claim 3: either show the comparison that establishes "first," or soften to "to our knowledge."

## Gaps in the library
- No source on horizon-scaling of hallucinated tool calls (Claim 7) — sources/ has nothing on this.

End with the calibrated gap count: (supported / overstated / uncited). Never report a section "clean" while [CITE] or [VALUE — verify] markers remain — surface them.

Pairs With

• citation-gate.sh (PostToolUse) — proves cite keys resolve; run it first so claim-check is not chasing dangling keys. claim-check is the deeper, source-reading layer it cannot reach.
• fact-checker agent — delegate Phase 4 source-reading for a long section: dispatch it to verify a batch of cited claims against sources/, then fold its findings into the table.
• block-fabrication.sh (PreToolUse) — if you try to "fix" an uncited claim by writing a stub .bib entry, this hook blocks it. That is the system working: flag [CITE], do not fabricate.
• /citation-audit — run after claim-check if you touched the bibliography, for the structural .bib health pass.

Common Rationalizations

Rationalization	Reality
"It's obviously true, no cite needed"	Obvious-to-you is not common-knowledge-for-this-audience. Cite it or it's UNSUPPORTED.
"I'll find a citation for this later"	Drafting around a citation you intend to find later is how fabrications enter. Flag [CITE] now.
"The source basically says this"	"Basically" is where overclaim lives. The verb and quantifier must match, not the gist.
"It's my result, so I can state it strongly"	Your tested harness does not license "in general." Calibrate the quantifier to what you measured.
"Reviewer won't check this one"	Reviewer 2 checks exactly the sentence you hoped they'd skip. Assume every claim is read adversarially.

Notes

• This skill never writes a citation. Its only sourcing output is [CITE] / [VALUE — verify] placeholders — honest flags, per the cardinal rule in CLAUDE.md.
• Verb/quantifier calibration is judgment work — run it on the Reasoner model (see CLAUDE.md → Model Selection).
• Log a recurring overclaim pattern ("you keep using causal verbs in the discussion") to tasks/reviews/ so it becomes a rule, not a one-off fix.