메뉴
Validate bibliography entries against citations in all lecture files. Structural checks (missing/unused entries, malformed fields) by default; `--semantic` adds citation-drift detection, DOI verification, and style-consistency checks.
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow --skill validate-bib명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | validate-bib |
| description | Validate bibliography entries against citations in all lecture files. Structural checks (missing/unused entries, malformed fields) by default; `--semantic` adds citation-drift detection, DOI verification, and style-consistency checks. |
| argument-hint | [--semantic] [--skip-doi] [--cite-claim] |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Grep","Glob","Write","Bash","WebFetch"] |
Cross-reference citations in lecture files against bibliography entries. Two modes:
--semantic: adds citation-drift detection (duplicate entries for the same paper), DOI verification via crossref, and citation-style consistency within each file.Report saved to quality_reports/bib_audit_[structural|semantic].md.
Read the bibliography file and extract all citation keys.
Scan lecture files for citation keys:
.tex: \cite{, \citet{, \citep{, \citeauthor{, \citeyear{, \textcite{, \parencite{.qmd / .md: @key, [@key], [@key1; @key2]Cross-reference:
.bib..bib but never cited..bib key (e.g., Smith2020 vs Smth2020).Check entry quality:
doi field normalized (no leading https://doi.org/).Write report to quality_reports/bib_audit_structural.md.
Slides/*.tex
Quarto/*.qmd
guide/*.qmd
master_supporting_docs/**/*.tex
Bibliography_base.bib at repo root by default; override via CLAUDE.md.
--semantic)Everything in Mode 1, plus:
Multiple .bib entries describing the same paper under different keys. Symptoms:
Smith2020 + Smith2020a with identical DOI or title.CallawaySantAnna2021 + CS2021 both pointing to the same paper..bib files.Detection heuristics (any → FLAG):
| Check | Signal |
|---|---|
| Same DOI across keys | Hard-duplicate (CRITICAL) |
| Same title (case-insensitive, punct-stripped) | Likely duplicate (CRITICAL) |
| Same author+year+journal | Probable duplicate (MEDIUM) |
| Title Jaccard > 0.85 on tokens ≥ 4 chars | Soft-duplicate (LOW) |
For each flagged pair: list both keys, where each is cited, and recommend a canonical key (prefer most-cited, then alphabetically first).
For each entry with a doi, fetch https://api.crossref.org/works/{doi} and compare:
Severity:
Rate limit: cap 50 lookups per run, 0.5s delay between calls. Cache in quality_reports/.doi_cache.json.
Opt-out: --skip-doi for offline or no-WebFetch environments.
For each file, count citation commands (\citet vs \citep vs \cite; @key vs [@key]). FLAG files with mixed styles without an obvious pattern (e.g., 20× \citep and 3× \cite in the same deck). Low-severity.
Gated behind --cite-claim. For the top-10 most-cited works per file, WebFetch the crossref abstract and surface it beside the in-text context. No auto-judgment — humans decide if the claim matches.
This is existence/structure, not appropriateness. Deciding whether the cited paper actually says what the in-text claim attributes to it is
/verify-claims's job — it reads the source and grounds a supports / partial / contradicts verdict in quotes + pages (with the EXPLAINED escape for a defensible named alternative).--cite-claimonly surfaces the abstract; for the verdict, run/verify-claims.
quality_reports/bib_audit_semantic.md)# Bibliography Semantic Audit
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Bibliography:** Bibliography_base.bib (N entries)
**Files scanned:** [list]
## Summary
| Check | Critical | Medium | Low |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structural | | | |
| Citation drift | | | |
| DOI verification | | | |
| Style consistency | 0 | 0 | |
## Critical Issues
### Duplicate entries
| Keys | Signal | Citations | Recommended canonical |
|---|---|---|---|
### DOI mismatches
| Key | Field | .bib value | crossref value |
|---|---|---|---|
## Medium / Low issues
…
## Next steps
1. Resolve duplicates — pick canonical key, update citations, remove orphans.
2. Fix DOI mismatches — verify paper in crossref or strip the wrong DOI.
3. Review style-consistency notes.
.claude/skills/review-paper/SKILL.md — pair for full pre-submission..claude/skills/audit-reproducibility/SKILL.md — numeric-claims counterpart..claude/skills/verify-claims/SKILL.md — citation appropriateness counterpart (does the cited paper support the claim?). This skill checks that a citation exists and is well-formed; /verify-claims checks that it holds./verify-claims's job (see 2d); this skill stays existence-and-structure only..bib file — all edits are recommendations.