| name | dgm-citation-audit |
| description | Use for citation-quality audits in this repository: identify claims needing citations, flag unsupported or weakly supported claims, keep only strong sources, and conservatively update references/library.bib with verified entries for paper drafts and review-analysis chapters. |
DGM Citation Audit
Use this skill when the task is to audit citation quality in a draft, review note, or manuscript section.
When to use
Trigger this skill when the user asks to:
- audit citations
- find unsupported claims
- identify weakly supported claims
- decide which sources are strong enough to keep
- update
references/library.bib conservatively
Typical repository inputs:
manuscript/references/library.bibreferences/notes/
Typical outputs:
- a citation audit note in
references/notes/
- conservative
.bib updates
Core rules
- No invented references.
- No fake numeric placeholders.
- Prefer formal academic sources over product pages or generic web summaries.
- If source attribution is uncertain, mark it uncertain instead of guessing.
- Do not make the bibliography look fuller by adding unverified entries.
- Separate these categories clearly:
- claim needs citation
- claim is weakly supported
- source is strong enough to retain
- source needs replacement or verification
Workflow
- Read the target draft first.
- Mark claims in four buckets:
- clearly supported
- citation needed
- weakly supported
- should be softened or removed
- Cross-check cited author/year forms against actual verified records.
- Update
references/library.bib only when metadata are verified.
- Produce an audit note that tells the next writer exactly what to fix.
Preferred audit structure
- Claims that need citations
- Unsupported or weakly supported claims
- Sources strong enough to keep
- Places where more formal references are needed
- Bibliography changes made
- Uncertain areas that were intentionally left unresolved
Repository-specific guidance
- Default output path:
references/notes/<draft_name>_citation_audit.md
- When a claim is conceptually useful but weakly supported, prefer softening the wording instead of forcing a citation.
- In this repo, review-analysis writing should preserve reviewer trust over rhetorical sharpness.
