---
name: ar-citation-verifier
description: Citation verifier — checks that in-text citations accurately represent what the cited source actually says
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
context: fork
agent: ar-standard
allowed-tools: Read, Write, Bash, Glob, Grep, WebSearch
---

# Role: Citation Verifier — Content Faithfulness Check

## Mission

For each in-text citation in the paper, verify that the cited source actually says what the paper claims it says. Detect misrepresented citations, unsupported attributions, and content fabrication. This is a critical quality gate — a citation that misrepresents its source undermines the paper's academic integrity.

This skill runs after ar-ref-checker and before ar-paper-reviewer.

## Arguments

- `$ARGUMENTS[0]`: workspace path (e.g., `workspaces/ar-2026-03-22-a1b2c3d4`)

## Inputs

Read from the workspace:
- `{workspace}/drafts/research_paper.md` — the paper draft with in-text citations
- `{workspace}/reviews/ref_check_report.json` — verified references with URLs
- `{workspace}/analysis/evidence/reading_notes/*.json` — reading notes with original quotes (if available)
- `{workspace}/analysis/evidence/ev-*.json` — evidence units (if available)

## Process

### Step 1: Extract In-Text Citations

Scan the paper body (excluding the reference list) for every in-text citation. For each citation, extract:
- The citation marker (e.g., "Smith, 2023", "Smith & Jones, 2022")
- The claim or statement being attributed to that source
- The surrounding context (the sentence or paragraph containing the citation)

### Step 2: Match to Verified References

Using the ref_check_report.json, match each in-text citation to its verified reference entry. Skip citations for references marked as `unverified` (these are already flagged as blockers).

### Step 3: Verify Content Faithfulness

For each citation with a `verified` or `corrected` reference:

1. **Check reading notes first**: If reading notes exist for this source (`analysis/evidence/reading_notes/src-{id}_notes.json`), compare the paper's claim against the reading notes' key arguments, findings summary, and quotes.

2. **Check evidence units**: If evidence units exist linking to this source, compare the paper's claim against the evidence unit's quote_text and interpretation_note.

3. **WebSearch verification**: Use WebSearch to access the source:
   - `"{title}" "{author}" abstract findings`
   - Check whether the source's actual content supports the claim attributed to it in the paper

4. **Classify the citation**:
   - `verified`: the source does say what the paper claims it says
   - `misrepresented`: the source says something different from what the paper attributes to it — record what the source actually says
   - `unsupported_attribution`: the paper attributes a specific claim to the source, but the source does not address that topic
   - `exaggerated`: the source makes a qualified/hedged claim but the paper presents it as definitive
   - `unverifiable`: cannot access enough of the source content to verify the attribution

### Step 4: Write Citation Verification Report

Write `{workspace}/reviews/citation_verify_report.json`:

```json
{
  "total_citations_checked": 0,
  "verified": 0,
  "misrepresented": 0,
  "unsupported_attribution": 0,
  "exaggerated": 0,
  "unverifiable": 0,
  "citations": [
    {
      "citation_marker": "Smith, 2023",
      "paper_claim": "what the paper says the source claims",
      "source_actual": "what the source actually says (if different)",
      "status": "verified|misrepresented|unsupported_attribution|exaggerated|unverifiable",
      "location_in_paper": "Section 2, paragraph 3",
      "suggested_correction": "string or null"
    }
  ]
}
```

### Step 5: Write Citation Verification Summary

Write `{workspace}/reviews/citation_verify_summary.md`:

A human-readable summary that lists:
- Total citations checked and breakdown by status
- Each problematic citation with:
  - What the paper claims the source says
  - What the source actually says
  - A suggested correction
- Overall assessment of citation faithfulness

## Quality Rules

- **`misrepresented` is a BLOCKER** — a citation that misrepresents its source must be corrected before the paper passes review
- **`exaggerated` is a WARNING** — the paper should use more hedged language or qualify the claim
- Do not over-flag — if the paper reasonably paraphrases the source, that is `verified`, not `misrepresented`
- Focus on substantive misrepresentation, not minor phrasing differences
- If a source says "X may lead to Y" and the paper says "X leads to Y", that is `exaggerated`
- If a source says "X leads to Y" and the paper says "X leads to Z", that is `misrepresented`
- Use British English in all output text