| name | source-verification |
| description | Verify scripture and talk quotes against actual source files. Enforces read-before-quoting, the cite count rule, and the pre-publish checklist. Load when writing ANY document that cites scriptures, conference talks, transcripts, or other verifiable sources — studies, evaluations, lessons, guides, docs, everything. |
Source Verification
The Core Rule
Search results are pointers, not sources. Memory is not a source. Use search tools to find what to study. Use Read to actually study it. Use mcp__webster__webster_define to understand the language. Each tool has a role; none replaces the others.
This applies to ALL documents, not just studies. If you put quotation marks around text and attribute it to a source — scripture, conference talk, YouTube transcript, handbook, anything — you must have verified those exact words against the actual source file. No exceptions. No "I'm confident I remember it correctly." Memory confabulates.
The Seal This Skill Keeps — Things As They Really Are
"The Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as
they really are, and of things as they really will be" (Jacob 4:13). "Truth is
knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; and
whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a
liar from the beginning" (D&C 93:24-25). The Lord sets that same seal on his
doctrine, his ordinances, and the law (3 Nephi 11:40; 18:13; D&C 98:7) — the full inventory lives in this repo at study/more-or-less-than-this.md. Two
operational rules fall out of it:
1. A quote can lie in both directions. More: added words, invented
attribution, composite quotes — the familiar confabulation class. Less: the
dropped qualifier, the ellipsis that shifts the meaning, accurate words stripped of
the context that made them mean what the author meant. Verify both: the words are
theirs AND the meaning survives the excerpt. An accurate quotation that
misrepresents its source is "less than this" — equally the liar's shape.
2. Additions are established as ours, never theirs. The sin named in
3 Nephi 11:40 is not having a further thought — it is "establish[ing] it for my
doctrine": putting your more-or-less into the source's mouth. Interpretation,
inference, emphasis, and extension are all lawful — outside the quotation marks,
claimed as our own ("my reading," "I infer," "this suggests"), calibrated to the
evidence, with [brackets] for any insertion inside quoted text. A faithful
paraphrase is honest precisely because it claims its own authorship.
Two-Phase Workflow
Phase 1 — Discovery (search freely)
mcp__gospel-engine-v2__gospel_search for keyword/phrase/semantic/combined search across scriptures, conference, manualsmcp__webster__define / mcp__webster__webster_define for historical word meaningsmcp__exa-search__web_search_exa for external scholarly context- Note file paths and references — these are pointers to read in Phase 2, not sources to quote
Phase 2 — Deep Reading (verify everything)
- For EVERY scripture you plan to quote,
Read the actual chapter markdown from gospel-library/
- For EVERY conference talk you plan to cite,
Read the actual talk file
- Follow the footnotes. Scripture markdown files contain superscript footnote markers and cross-references. These are insights handed to us on a silver platter — read them, follow them, use them.
- Pull real quotes from source files, never from search excerpts
The Cite Count Rule
For N citations in your output, perform at least N Read calls (or equivalent verified tool reads — e.g., a mcp__byu-citations__byu_citations lookup, a mcp__webster__webster_define call, a mcp__gospel-engine-v2__gospel_get for the full source).
If you cite 8 scriptures and 2 conference talks, you should have called Read (or gospel_get) at least 10 times on actual source files.
Citations include numbers and biographical claims, not just quotes. Each of these is a claim of fact and must trace to a tool result you got this session:
- Counts. "Thirty general conference citations." "Six talks across eight years." "Twelve scriptures use this phrase." → BYU Citation Index, gospel_search results, or your own verified count.
- Dates and chronology. "The earliest reference is 1944." "He last cited it in October 2022." "The first apostle to use this construction was…" → Verify against the actual citation list, not inference from training data.
- Biographical claims. "Featherstone's first conference talk after his call." "Maxwell wrote this six months after his cancer diagnosis." → Verify against the talk file, the speaker's biography, or a primary source.
- Comparative claims. "More than any other apostle." "The most-cited verse in this chapter." → Verify both sides of the comparison or rephrase as a non-comparative observation.
- "Only," "first," "last," "never," "always." Universal quantifiers are easy to write and hard to verify. Either prove them with a search result, or soften to "appears to be" / "I haven't found another."
If you cannot point to a tool call from this session that produced the number, the date, or the biographical claim, treat it the same as an unverified quote: rephrase as paraphrase ("appears in many talks," "in the modern conference record I checked"), or remove it.
What Counts as a Source
| ✅ Source (quote from these) | ❌ Not a Source (use as pointers only) |
|---|
Read on a gospel-library markdown file | gospel_search excerpts |
Read on a conference talk file | gospel_search semantic snippets |
Read on a manual chapter | gospel_search talk summaries |
| Any search result labeled [AI SUMMARY] |
| Your own memory of a scripture's wording |
Quote Hygiene
Quotation marks mean verbatim. If you put text in quotes and attribute it, those must be the actual words from the source. No composites, no paraphrases-in-quotes, no "close enough."
Three levels of attribution:
| Level | Format | Requirement |
|---|
| Direct quote | "exact words" — Source | Must be verified verbatim against source file |
| Paraphrase | Source teaches that... / Source argues... | Indirect speech, no quotation marks, captures the idea faithfully |
| Reference | (see Source) | Points to the source without claiming specific wording |
When in doubt, paraphrase. A faithful paraphrase is honest. A near-miss direct quote is a lie that looks like truth.
The confabulation trap: Training data contains approximate versions of real texts. These feel accurate. They are close enough to pass casual inspection. But "close enough" is exactly where fabrication hides — wrong first words, missing qualifiers, phrases from adjacent verses, composite quotes from multiple passages. The only cure is reading the source file.
YouTube and transcript quotes: Download the transcript first (mcp__yt__yt_download). Read the relevant section. Copy the actual words. Assign the correct timestamp by reading the transcript timestamps, not by guessing.
Verify the source's own citations too — to depth 2 (a quote of a quote). When the thing you quote itself embeds a citation, verify that embedded citation against its source, then stop. Examples:
- A Webster 1828 entry you quote cites a verse ("...as a presumptuous sin. Numbers 15:30") — confirm Webster's entry actually carries that citation, with that verse. This is the class the 2026-06-13 walk missed and the scratch-audit fan-out caught: fabricated "Webster cites verse X" claims (PRESUMPTUOUS's "Ps 19:13", NEVERTHELESS's "Heb 12:11", the alma5 study's "Webster cites Gen 1:27 under image" — genuine = Matt 22:20). A study's Webster quotes need the dictionary MCP even when its scripture checks clean.
- A conference talk you quote itself quotes scripture or another speaker — verify that inner quote/attribution against its own source.
- A study you cite quotes a third source — verify that the cited study quoted it correctly.
Stop at depth 2. Verify what you quote, and the citation inside what you quote; do not chase the citation-inside-the-citation-inside-the-citation. Depth 2 catches the confabulated-attribution class without infinite regress.
Phase 3 — Writing (synthesize)
After discovery and deep reading, write the study. Weave real quotes with analysis. Follow the text where it leads.
Phase 4 — Becoming (bridge to life)
After writing the study, include a Becoming section. See the becoming skill for full guidance. Every study should land somewhere personal — not just knowledge, but direction.
- What did this study reveal about how I should live?
- What specific practice or commitment does this point toward?
- Is there an existing personal-application document this connects to?
- What would it look like to apply this next week?
Quality Rhythm
Discovery → Reading → Writing → Becoming. Start broad (search), go deep (read full sources with footnotes), synthesize (write), then land it personally (become). Never write from search results. Never end at synthesis.
Pre-Publish Checklist
Before finalizing any document that cites sources (study, lesson, talk, evaluation, guide, doc — anything), verify:
