Citation-backed responses with direct quotes from source documents. Use when analyzing long docs, answering codebase/spec questions, or when response accuracy is critical.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Citation-backed responses with direct quotes from source documents. Use when analyzing long docs, answering codebase/spec questions, or when response accuracy is critical.
args
<question or task> [--source <file-or-path>]
allowed-tools
Read, Grep, Glob, TodoWrite
argument-hint
<question about a document or codebase>
created
"2026-03-22T00:00:00.000Z"
modified
"2026-05-09T00:00:00.000Z"
reviewed
"2026-03-22T00:00:00.000Z"
/prompt-engineering:ground-response
Produce a grounded, citation-backed response — every claim traced to a source quote, unsupported claims retracted, unknowns stated explicitly.
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when...
Use something else when...
You need factual accuracy grounded in source documents
Text needs style/tone adjustment → /prose:distill
Analyzing long documents (>20k tokens) where hallucination risk is high
You need code review → /code-quality:code-review
User asks to "cite sources" or "verify claims"
You need to synthesize scattered notes → /prose:synthesize
Answering questions about specs, policies, or technical docs
General coding task with no source verification needed
User wants auditable, traceable answers
Creative writing or brainstorming (accuracy not the goal)
Core Principles
These three techniques are from Anthropic's official documentation on reducing hallucination. Apply all three in every response.
1. Permit Uncertainty
You have explicit permission to say "I don't know" or "The source does not address this." Do not invent, speculate, or fill gaps with plausible-sounding information. When the source is silent on a topic, say so. When the source is ambiguous, state the ambiguity.
2. Extract Direct Quotes First
Before analyzing or answering, extract word-for-word quotes from the source material that are relevant to the task. This grounds your reasoning in actual text, not recalled impressions. For documents >20k tokens, this step is critical — extract before you analyze.
3. Verify Claims Against Quotes
After formulating your response, audit every claim. Each claim must have a supporting quote. If a claim lacks a supporting quote, retract it. Mark retracted claims with [RETRACTED — no supporting quote found]. This makes your response auditable.
Parameters
Parse $ARGUMENTS:
Question/task: The primary argument — what to analyze or answer
--source <path>: Optional file path or glob pattern for source material
If no --source is provided, look for source material in the conversation context
If no source material is available anywhere, ask the user to provide it
Execution
Execute this grounded analysis workflow:
Step 1: Identify and Read Source Material
If --source is provided, read the file(s):
Single file: use Read
Glob pattern: use Glob to find files, then Read each
Directory: use Glob with **/* to discover relevant files
If no --source, check conversation context for documents, code, or prior content
If no source material is available, stop and ask: "What document or source should I ground my response in?"
Note the total size of source material. For large sources (>20k tokens), be especially rigorous about Step 2.
Step 2: Extract Direct Quotes
Search the source material and extract word-for-word quotes relevant to the question/task.
Exact text: Word-for-word from the source — no paraphrasing
Location: File path and line number, or document section
Extract comprehensively. It is better to extract too many quotes than too few — you can discard unused quotes later, but you cannot cite quotes you didn't extract.
If no relevant quotes are found, state: "No relevant quotes found in the provided source material. I cannot provide a grounded response to this question."
Step 3: Formulate Claims
Answer the question or perform the task. Structure your response as a series of claims, each referencing one or more quotes:
Tag each claim with its supporting quote(s): [Q1], [Q2, Q3]
Keep claims atomic — one assertion per claim
Distinguish between what the source explicitly states and what you infer
Step 4: Verify — Audit Every Claim
Walk through each claim in your response:
Does it have a tagged quote reference?
Does the referenced quote actually support this specific claim?
Is the claim a faithful representation of the quote, or does it overstate/distort?
For any claim that fails verification:
If the claim overstates the quote → weaken it to match what the quote supports
If no quote supports it → mark as [RETRACTED — no supporting quote found]
If the quote is ambiguous → note the ambiguity explicitly
Step 5: State Unknowns
After verification, explicitly list:
Questions the source does not address — gaps in the material relevant to the task
Ambiguities — where the source is unclear or contradictory
Limitations — boundaries of what can be concluded from this source alone
Do not skip this step. Stating unknowns is as important as stating knowns.
Step 6: Present Grounded Response
Deliver the final response using this structure:
## Grounded Analysis
<Your response with inline [QN] citations for each claim>
## Supporting Quotes
| # | Quote | Source |
|---|-------|--------|
| Q1 | "exact text from source" | file.md:42 |
| Q2 | "exact text from source" | file.md:78 |
## What the Source Does Not Address
- <Gap 1>
- <Gap 2>
## Retracted Claims (if any)
- <Claim that was removed and why>
Handling Edge Cases
Situation
Approach
Source contradicts itself
Quote both passages, note the contradiction, do not resolve it
Question is partially answerable
Answer the answerable part with citations, list unanswerable parts in unknowns
Source is code, not prose
Extract relevant code blocks as quotes, cite file:line
Multiple sources disagree
Present each source's position with its quotes, note the disagreement
Source is very short (<1k tokens)
Still follow the full workflow — brevity doesn't eliminate hallucination risk
