ref-verify 1.1.2

Executable DOI and claim verification helpers for academic citations

ref-verify

English | 한국어

Stop citing papers that do not say what you think they say.

ref-verify is an agent skill for citation verification. It helps Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and other skill-aware agents check references before they land in your draft.

Use it when you want an agent to find papers, verify a DOI, check whether a paper supports a specific claim, or audit references before submission. No server setup is required.

---

Install the skill

# requires npx (comes with Node.js)
npx skills add Moonweave-Research/ref-verify -g \
  --skill ref-verify \
  --agent claude-code cursor codex \
  -y

Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and any agent that supports the npx skills ecosystem.

After installation, use it like a normal agent skill. You do not start a server and you do not configure MCP for this workflow. No MCP server is required for this workflow.

---

Use it

Ask naturally:

verify these citations before I submit: [DOI list]
does this paper actually support the claim "actuation strain above 100%"?
find 3 papers supporting the claim that X, and verify each citation
check doi 10.1126/science.287.5454.836 against this title and year
audit all my references before submission

ref-verify stays quiet for general topic questions, prose editing, APA/IEEE formatting, and citation style questions.

---

Optional CLI engine

The skill is the agent workflow. The Python CLI is the skill-level execution engine that the installed skill can call from a terminal.

The Python package is CLI-only. It does not install SKILL.md; install the agent skill from GitHub with npx skills add as shown above.

This is a skill/plugin-level workflow, not an MCP server. The CLI covers the checks that are currently safe to automate directly:

• CrossRef metadata check: ref-verify verify-doi
• DOI-bound abstract claim check: ref-verify check-claim
  • literal text claims
  • subject-matched percentage claims such as efficiency, response rate, or actuation strain
  • simple unit/count claims such as cycles, patients, voltage, temperature, and concentration
  • CrossRef first, then DOI-bound Semantic Scholar and PubMed fallback when CrossRef has no abstract
• JSON output for agent-readable routing
• Non-zero exit codes for WARN, REJECT, and UNVERIFIABLE results

Statistical metrics such as p-values, AUC/AUROC, F1 score, hazard ratio, odds ratio, and confidence intervals still use the manual skill protocol. DOI landing-page checks still use the skill protocol. Still handled by the skill protocol: Unpaywall, arXiv, two-source existence checks, and retraction checks remain in SKILL.md.

The CLI has zero third-party Python runtime dependencies, but it is not an offline verifier. Functional checks require outbound HTTPS access to public academic APIs such as CrossRef, Semantic Scholar, and PubMed.

Install the CLI from a local checkout:

git clone https://github.com/Moonweave-Research/ref-verify.git
cd ref-verify
python3 -m pip install -e .

Check whether the CLI is available:

ref-verify --help

If you are working from an uninstalled source checkout, use the module entrypoint:

PYTHONPATH=src python3 -m ref_verify.cli --help

Run a DOI metadata check:

ref-verify verify-doi 10.1126/science.287.5454.836 \
  --title "High-Speed Electrically Actuated Elastomers with Strain Greater Than 100%" \
  --first-author Pelrine \
  --year 2000 \
  --json

Run a DOI-bound abstract claim check:

ref-verify check-claim 10.1126/science.287.5454.836 \
  --claim "actuation strain above 100%" \
  --json

By default, check-claim uses CrossRef first. If CrossRef has no abstract, it tries DOI-bound Semantic Scholar and PubMed fallback sources. Use --source crossref, --source semantic-scholar, or --source pubmed for source-specific debugging; explicit non-CrossRef source selection bypasses CrossRef.

Source-checkout equivalents:

PYTHONPATH=src python3 -m ref_verify.cli verify-doi 10.1126/science.287.5454.836 \
  --title "High-Speed Electrically Actuated Elastomers with Strain Greater Than 100%" \
  --first-author Pelrine \
  --year 2000 \
  --json

PYTHONPATH=src python3 -m ref_verify.cli check-claim 10.1126/science.287.5454.836 \
  --claim "actuation strain above 100%" \
  --json

For local development, run:

PYTHONPATH=src python3 -m unittest discover -s tests -v

Release safety checks also build the Python package, validate metadata, and install the built wheel in a fresh virtualenv before publishing. Live checks against public academic APIs are kept in a manual GitHub Actions workflow so normal CI does not fail because an upstream API is temporarily unavailable.

---

What it catches

Problem	What happens without ref-verify
Wrong DOI	An agent lists a plausible DOI that resolves to a different paper
Wrong authors	A citation says "Smith et al. (2020)", but CrossRef shows one author
Wrong year	The paper was published in 2008, but the draft says 2011
Made-up content	The draft says a paper shows a result that is not in the abstract
Near-miss citation	The right number appears, but in the wrong context
Retracted paper	The DOI is valid, but the paper was retracted

---

Modes

Quick Screen is for DOIs you already have. It uses CrossRef to compare the provided DOI, title, first-author surname, and year.

ref-verify verify-doi <doi> --title "<title>" --first-author <last-name> --year <year> --json

verify-doi exits 0 only for PASS. WARN and REJECT return a non-zero exit code, so weak or mismatched metadata cannot silently pass automation gates.

Full Audit is for literature search and final pre-submission review. The skill fetches abstracts through CrossRef, Semantic Scholar, Unpaywall, arXiv, and PubMed where needed, then checks whether the paper supports the specific claim being cited.

For a single DOI-backed claim, the CLI can run the abstract check:

ref-verify check-claim <doi> --claim "<specific claim>" --json

check-claim exits 0 only for ACCEPT. WARN, PARTIAL, and UNVERIFIABLE return a non-zero exit code. JSON output includes abstract_source, source_attempts, and error_code so agents can distinguish missing abstracts, source failures, DOI mismatches, and ambiguous evidence.

Current check-claim error codes:

• CLAIM_SUPPORTED: explicit abstract support found.
• CLAIM_NOT_EXPLICIT: an abstract was available, but the claim was not explicitly supported.
• CLAIM_AMBIGUOUS: numeric evidence or context exists, but binding is ambiguous.
• NO_ABSTRACT: attempted DOI-bound sources did not provide abstract text.
• DOI_NOT_FOUND: selected source did not find a DOI-bound record.
• DOI_MISMATCH: the primary or explicitly selected DOI-bound record did not match the requested DOI.
• SOURCE_API_ERROR, SOURCE_TIMEOUT, SOURCE_UNSUPPORTED: source lookup failed or could not be used.

Core rule: every content statement about a paper must come from a live-fetched abstract. If the abstract is inaccessible after fallback checks, say UNVERIFIABLE. Do not fill the gap from memory.

---

Examples

Checking citations you already have

User: "verify these 3 citations before I submit"

Shahinpoor & Kim (2001) 10.1088/0964-1726/10/4/327 - PASS
Bar-Cohen (2004)        10.1117/3.547465            - WARN  (listed as author; CrossRef: editor)
Carpi et al. (2011)     10.1016/B978-0-08-047488-5.00001-0 - REJECT

Checking a specific claim

User: "does the Pelrine 2000 paper actually say DEAs reach over 100% strain?"

CONTENT: Supported
"Actuated strains up to 117% were demonstrated with silicone elastomers,
and up to 215% with acrylic elastomers."
[Source: CrossRef raw JSON, not recalled from memory]

Near-miss citation

A candidate paper may contain "500% strain", but the abstract can show that the number is a pre-strain condition, not an actuation result. ref-verify reports that as WARN (PARTIAL) instead of accepting the citation.

---

Related

• anneal-skill - measure-first decision discipline for AI agents
• decide-skill - decision automation for non-expert domains