| name | cite-check |
| description | Use when the user has a list of claims, ideas, laws, quotes, or attributions and needs original sources and provenance for each. Triggers include: find references, find sources, source this, cite these, where does this come from, who said this, original source, provenance, attribution check, fact-check attributions. |
Find References: Deep Source Research
Systematically find original sources, provenance, and attribution for a list of claims, ideas, or named concepts.
Workflow
1. Read the Input
Read the document or list containing items that need sourced citations. Understand the structure — sections, categories, groupings.
2. Batch and Parallelize
Group items into batches of 5–15 (by section or theme). Dispatch parallel research agents, one per batch. Each agent should be general-purpose with a clear prompt.
Agent prompt template:
Research and find the original source/reference for each of these [items].
I need the original publication, paper, blog post, or book where each was
first articulated. Provide author, title, year, and a URL or citation
where possible.
[List of items with their descriptions]
For each, provide:
- Original author
- Original source (paper, blog post, book, talk, etc.)
- Year
- URL or citation
- Brief note on provenance if the attribution is uncertain or disputed
Format the output as a clean markdown list.
Use model: sonnet for research agents to balance speed and quality.
3. Compile Results
Merge all agent results back into the source document as a references section. Match the document's existing structure (e.g., if items are grouped by chapter/section, group references the same way).
For each item, the reference entry should include:
- Who — original author (and who named/popularized it, if different)
- What — original source (paper, book, blog post, talk, RFC, etc.)
- When — year of first publication
- Where — URL or full citation
- Provenance note — only when attribution is contested, uncertain, or has an interesting chain (e.g., concept by person A, named by person B, popularized by person C)
4. Flag Problems
Create an editorial flags table for items with issues. Flag categories:
| Flag | Meaning |
|---|
| Unknown author | No traceable originator; folk wisdom or oral tradition |
| Disputed attribution | Multiple claimants or subject disputes it |
| Misattribution | Commonly attributed to wrong person |
| No source found | Exhaustive search turned up nothing |
| Popular version overstated | Common understanding diverges from original |
| Multi-step attribution | Concept, naming, and popularization by different people |
Place the flags table in the document near the references for easy access during writing.
5. Verify When Challenged
If the user corrects or questions a finding:
- Dispatch a targeted verification agent for the specific item
- Search with more precision (exact quotes, specific books, page numbers)
- Update the reference and flag accordingly
- Do not defend initial findings if the user has better information — verify their claim instead
Research Agent Best Practices
- Always ask for provenance, not just attribution. "Who first said it" and "who named it" and "who popularized it" are often three different people.
- Flag folk origins honestly. Some concepts have no single source — say so rather than forcing a citation.
- Distinguish the concept from the name. Many laws were observed long before they were named (e.g., Goodhart's observation in 1975, named by Hoskin in 1996, famous phrasing by Strathern in 1997).
- Note when popular understanding diverges from the original. If the common version of a law overstates or distorts the original claim, flag it.
- Prefer primary sources. A Wikipedia article is a starting point, not a citation. Trace back to the original paper, book, or post.
Output Quality Checklist
Before presenting results to the user:
