--- name: wanshuiyin/citation-audit source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/wanshuiyin-citation-audit@2/SKILL.md source_sha256: 123481614b71 --- # Citation Audit > **Codex assurance:** base audit artifacts record > `review_independence: same-family` and `acceptance_status: provisional`. > Cross-family overlays or deterministic metadata checks may record accepted; > unavailable semantic review emits BLOCKED. Verify every `\cite{...}` in a paper against three independent layers: 1. **Existence** — the cited paper actually exists at the claimed arXiv ID / DOI / venue. 2. **Metadata correctness** — author names, year, venue, and title match canonical sources (DBLP, arXiv, ACL Anthology, Nature, OpenReview, etc.). 3. **Context appropriateness** — the cited paper actually supports the claim it is being used to support in the manuscript. This skill is the fourth layer of \aris{}'s evidence-and-claim assurance, complementing `experiment-audit` (code), `result-to-claim` (science verdict), and `paper-claim-audit` (numerical claims). Together they form a bottom-up integrity stack from raw evaluation code to manuscript bibliography. ## When to Use This Skill **Run before submission.** The right gating point is: - After `paper-write` has produced the LaTeX draft and bib file - After `paper-claim-audit` has verified numerical claims - Before final `paper-compile` for submission **Do not** run this on a half-written draft — most of the work is in cross-checking each `\cite` against context, which is wasted on placeholder text. ## What This Skill Catches The dangerous citation problems are **not** wildly fake citations — those are easy to spot. The dangerous ones are: - **Wrong-context citations**: real paper, but the cited claim is not what that paper actually establishes (e.g., citing Self-Refine to support "self-feedback produces correlated errors" — Self-Refine actually argues the opposite). - **Author hallucinations**: anonymous-author placeholders that slipped through, missing co-authors, wrong order. - **Title drift**: arXiv v1 vs v3 with different titles silently merged. - **Venue confusion**: arXiv preprint cited but the official venue is now CVPR/ICML/NeurIPS — using the wrong record. - **Year mismatch**: arXiv 2023 preprint with 2024 conference acceptance, year reported inconsistently. - **Phantom DOIs**: DOI looks real but does not resolve. - **Self-citation drift**: your own prior work cited with year off by one. ## Constants - **REVIEWER_MODEL = `gpt-5.6-sol`** — Fresh Codex reviewer with web access; same-family provisional in the base mirror. - **CONTEXT_POLICY = `fresh`** — Each audit run uses a new reviewer thread (REVIEWER_BIAS_GUARD). Continue only with `send_input` when explicitly resuming the same audit. - **WEB_SEARCH = required** — The reviewer must perform real web/DBLP/arXiv lookups, not pattern-match from memory. - **OUTPUT = `CITATION_AUDIT.md`** — Human-readable per-entry verdict report. - **STATE = `CITATION_AUDIT.json`** — Machine-readable verdict ledger consumable by downstream tools. - **SOFT_ONLY = `false`** — When true (set via `— soft-only` / `— soft_only` flag), the audit runs all three layers normally but **forbids any `.bib` file mutation**. Findings that would otherwise mutate the bib (FIX / REPLACE / REMOVE) are translated into per-occurrence sentence-rewrite proposals against the citing `*.tex` files. Used by `/resubmit-pipeline` Phase 1 to honor the user's hard "freeze the bib" constraint. - **RENDER_HTML = true** — When `true` (default), auto-render `CITATION_AUDIT.md` to HTML after writing the report. Uses **full review gate** (audit-class artifact). Set `false` to skip, or pass `— render html: false`. **Non-blocking**: failures don't invalidate the audit verdict. ## Workflow ### Step 1: Discover bib file and section files Locate: - `references.bib` (or `paper.bib` / similar) under the paper directory - All `*.tex` files containing `\cite{...}` calls (typically `sec/` or `sections/`) If multiple bib files exist, audit each separately. ### Step 2: Extract all (cite-key, context) pairs For each `\cite{key1,key2,...}` invocation in the paper: - Record the cite key - Record the file + line number - Record the surrounding sentence (≥ 1 full sentence around the cite, for context check) Output a flat list of `(key, file, line, surrounding_sentence)` tuples. Also build the inverse: for each bib entry, the list of all places it is cited. Define two protocol sets used throughout the rest of the workflow: `cited_keys` is the set of unique cite keys appearing in any `\cite{...}` invocation across the audited `*.tex` files (de-duplicated), and `bib_keys` is the set of keys parsed from the audited bib file(s). `cited_keys` drives Step 3 (audit only cited entries); `bib_keys \ cited_keys` is the uncited residual surfaced by the `--uncited` opt-in. If the user passed `--uncited`, also compute the set difference `bib_keys \ cited_keys` here and stash it for use in Steps 5 and the JSON aggregation; see "Uncited Entry Detection (opt-in)" below for the protocol. The set-diff is a string operation only and does not consume reviewer budget. Save the extracted contexts to `paper/.aris/citation-audit/contexts.txt` so the reviewer can read it directly. Use the paper-dir-relative path `.aris/citation-audit/contexts.txt` when recording the file in `audited_input_hashes`; do not stage under `/tmp` or other transient locations that the verifier cannot rehash later. ### Step 3: Send each entry to a fresh reviewer (same-family provisional by default) For each **cited** bib entry — i.e., each key in `cited_keys` with at least one extracted citation context — launch a fresh Codex reviewer agent. Do not reuse the same reviewer across entries. Do **not** spawn an agent for entries in `bib_keys \ cited_keys`; those are detect-only and surface only when `--uncited` is explicitly enabled (see "Uncited Entry Detection" below). ``` spawn_agent: model: gpt-5.6-sol reasoning_effort: xhigh message: | You are auditing a bibliographic entry. Use web/DBLP/arXiv search. ## Bib entry @article{key2024example, author = {...}, title = {...}, journal = {...}, year = {...}, ... } ## Where this entry is cited in the paper [paste extracted contexts] For this entry, verify: 1. EXISTENCE: does this paper exist at the claimed arXiv ID / DOI / venue? Output: YES / NO / UNCERTAIN, with the verifying URL. 2. METADATA: are author names, year, venue, title correct? For each, output: correct / wrong: should be ... / typo: ... 3. CONTEXT: for each use, does the cited paper actually support the surrounding claim? Output per-use: SUPPORTS / WEAK / WRONG, with one-sentence reasoning. VERDICT: KEEP / FIX / REPLACE / REMOVE - KEEP: entry is clean, all uses are appropriate - FIX: metadata needs correction; uses are appropriate - REPLACE: cite is wrong-context, find a different paper that actually supports the claim - REMOVE: entry is hallucinated or unsupportable Be honest. If you cannot verify online, say UNCERTAIN; do not guess. ``` Save the response to `.aris/traces/citation-audit/_runNN/.md` per the review-tracing protocol. ### Step 4: Aggregate verdicts Build `CITATION_AUDIT.json` following the schema defined in **"Submission Artifact Emission"** below (single authoritative schema for this file). Per-entry ledger data goes under `details.per_entry`, not under a top-level `entries` field. The top-level `verdict` is a single overall value (PASS / WARN / FAIL / NOT_APPLICABLE / BLOCKED / ERROR) derived from per-entry verdicts per the decision table in "Submission Artifact Emission"; the top-level `summary` is a one-line human-readable string. Concretely, `details` carries the per-entry ledger: ```json "details": { "total_entries": 29, "counts": { "KEEP": 11, "FIX": 14, "REPLACE": 3, "REMOVE": 1 }, "per_entry": [ { "key": "lu2024aiscientist", "verdict": "KEEP", "axis_failures": [], "uses": [ {"file": "sections/1.intro.tex", "line": 11, "verdict": "SUPPORTS"}, {"file": "sections/6.related.tex", "line": 8, "verdict": "SUPPORTS"} ] }, { "key": "madaan2023selfrefine", "verdict": "FIX", "axis_failures": ["CONTEXT"], "uses": [ {"file": "sections/2.overview.tex", "line": 42, "verdict": "WRONG", "note": "Self-Refine demonstrates iterative improvement, not correlated errors"}, {"file": "sections/6.related.tex", "line": 13, "verdict": "SUPPORTS"} ] } ] } ``` See "Submission Artifact Emission" for the full artifact (top-level fields `audit_skill`, `verdict`, `reason_code`, `summary`, `audited_input_hashes`, `trace_path`, `thread_id`, `reviewer_model`, `reviewer_reasoning`, `generated_at`, `details`). ### Step 5: Generate human-readable report Write `CITATION_AUDIT.md`: ```markdown # Citation Audit Report **Date**: 2026-04-19 **Bib file(s)**: references.bib **Total entries**: 29 ## Summary | Verdict | Count | |---------|------| | KEEP | 11 | | FIX | 14 | | REPLACE | 3 | | REMOVE | 1 | ## Priority Fixes (CRITICAL — apply before submission) ### REMOVE: anon2025placeholder - Author listed as "Anonymous" — canonical record exists with real authors and full title - Title is incomplete - ACTION: Replace key with the canonical citekey, update authors and title ### REPLACE-CONTEXT: example2023priorwork in sec/2.overview.tex:42 - Cited to support a specific technical claim - The cited paper actually demonstrates a different (related but distinct) phenomenon - ACTION: Rewrite the sentence; cite the prior work for what it actually establishes [... continues for each entry ...] ## All-Clean Entries (no action needed) [list of KEEP keys] ``` When `--uncited` is set, append the following section after "All-Clean Entries": ```markdown ## Uncited Entries (opt-in) The following bib entries are present in the audited bib file(s) but are not referenced by any `\cite{...}` in the paper body: - `author2010example` — suggestion: prune (uncited; no local evidence of intent) - `someone2015othercite` — suggestion: prune (uncited; no local evidence of intent) - `third2024todo` — suggestion: check (a `% TODO: cite third2024todo` comment was found in `sections/3.related.tex`) This section is detect-only; it does not change the top-level verdict. ``` ### Step 6: Apply fixes (interactive) For each FIX/REPLACE/REMOVE verdict, prompt the user: ``` Fix [key]? Change: Files affected: references.bib + sec/X.tex:Y [Apply / Skip / Defer] ``` If `AUTO_APPLY = true`, apply all FIX-level changes (metadata corrections only). REPLACE and REMOVE always require human approval — they involve content changes. ### Step 7: Recompile and verify ```bash latexmk -C && latexmk -pdf -interaction=nonstopmode main.tex ``` Confirm: - No new `Citation undefined` warnings - No `Reference undefined` warnings - Page count unchanged or only minimally affected by metadata fixes ## Uncited Entry Detection (opt-in) **Default**: disabled. Existing users see no behavior change — only `\cite{...}` keys are audited, and bib entries with no `\cite` reference in the manuscript are silently ignored. **Opt-in**: pass `--uncited` on invocation. The skill then performs a set-diff after Step 2 and reports bib entries that appear in any audited bib file(s) but are not cited anywhere in the paper. Detect-only — uncited entries are **not** sent to the reviewer agent, so there is no extra reviewer/web-lookup cost. ### Why opt-in This skill's headline output is the three-axis audit on cited entries. Surfacing uncited bib entries by default would (a) change long-form output for every existing run, and (b) noise up the verdict for users who intentionally maintain a superset bib file (e.g., shared lab bib, in-progress section reorder where the cite has been removed but the entry intentionally retained). The flag preserves zero behavior change for existing callers. ### Effect when enabled When `--uncited` is set: - `CITATION_AUDIT.md` gains a `## Uncited Entries (opt-in)` section listing the keys with a one-line suggestion each: `prune` (entry is dead weight; recommend deleting) or `check` (entry might be intentional; flag for user review). Default suggestion is `prune`; only emit `check` when there is concrete local evidence (e.g., a TODO comment in a `.tex` file mentioning the key, or a recently removed `\cite` visible in `git diff`). Do not infer intent from the bib key string alone. - `CITATION_AUDIT.json` `details` gains an `uncited_entries` array; see "Submission Artifact Emission" below for the schema. - The top-level `verdict` is **unchanged**: uncited entries do not upgrade or downgrade the PASS / WARN / FAIL / etc. classification. The `reason_code` and `summary` are likewise unchanged in shape; only the `details.uncited_entries` field appears. - Verifier gates and downstream skills (`paper-writing` Phase 6, `verify_paper_audits.sh`) MUST NOT treat the presence of `uncited_entries` as a blocking signal. ### When opt-in is appropriate - Pre-submission cleanup (drop dead bib entries before sharing camera-ready ZIP). - Shared lab bib file where the paper uses a subset and the user wants to confirm what is in scope. - Recurring audits where the user has previously seen the uncited count and wants to track whether it changed. ### Fallback when bib enumeration fails If `--uncited` is enabled but full bib-key enumeration fails (e.g., malformed bib syntax that the parser cannot recover), the cited-entry audit must still proceed if at all possible. In that case: - Do **not** alter the top-level `verdict`, `reason_code`, or `summary`. - Emit `details.uncited_entries` as an empty array `[]`. - Add `details.uncited_entries_status: "unavailable"` plus a one-line note explaining why (e.g., `"bib parser could not enumerate keys; cited-entry audit completed normally"`). - Verifier gates and downstream skills MUST treat `unavailable` the same as the field being absent: not blocking. If the bib file cannot be read well enough to audit even the cited entries, fall back to the existing `BLOCKED` / `bib_unreadable` path defined in the verdict decision table; this is the same behavior as the no-flag default. ## Key Rules - **Fresh reviewer thread per audit run** — never reuse prior review context - **Web access required** — the reviewer must do real lookups, not memory pattern-match - **Wrong-context > metadata** — a real paper used to support a wrong claim is more dangerous than a typo in author name - **REPLACE/REMOVE require human approval** — never auto-modify content claims - **Always emit, never block** — this skill always writes `CITATION_AUDIT.json` with a verdict; the decision to block finalization lives in `paper-writing` Phase 6 + `verify_paper_audits.sh`, driven by the `assurance` level. See "Submission Artifact Emission" below. - **Run once per submission** — the audit is wall-clock expensive (web lookups for each entry); not for every save - **Uncited detection is opt-in only** — never auto-enable; never block on uncited entries; existing callers must observe identical output if they do not pass `--uncited` - **Under `--soft-only`, citation-audit emits text-rewrite proposals only; bib files are never mutated regardless of finding severity.** The audit semantics (existence + metadata + context) and the per-entry KEEP/FIX/REPLACE/REMOVE ledger are preserved verbatim; only the action layer is translated to per-occurrence sentence rewrites in the citing `*.tex` files. Refuse any downstream-proposed bib edit while `--soft-only` is set. ## Comparison with Other Audit Skills | Skill | What it audits | What it catches | |-------|---------------|-----------------| | `/experiment-audit` | Evaluation code | Fake ground truth, self-normalized scores, phantom results | | `/result-to-claim` | Result-to-claim mapping | Claims unsupported by evidence | | `/paper-claim-audit` | Numerical claims in manuscript | Number inflation, best-seed cherry-pick, config mismatch | | `/citation-audit` | Bibliographic entries | Hallucinated refs, wrong-context citations, metadata errors | Together: code → result → numerical claim → cited claim. Each layer uses a fresh validator context; base Codex results are same-family provisional and overlays may be cross-family accepted. ## Known Limitations - **DBLP coverage gap**: very recent papers (< 2 weeks) may not yet be in DBLP. Reviewer should fall back to arXiv. - **Pre-print vs published**: when both exist, reviewer should prefer the published venue (ICML 2024 over arXiv 2401.xxxxx) but flag both. - **Anthology vs OpenReview**: NeurIPS/ICLR papers have OpenReview entries before official proceedings; both are valid sources. - **Multi-author truncation**: bib entries with 6+ authors using `and others` are conventional and not flagged unless the truncation hides a co-author the user explicitly cares about. ## Review Tracing After each reviewer agent call, save the trace following `shared-references/review-tracing.md` (Policy C — forensic; never silently skip). Use `save_trace.sh` (resolved per the chain in `shared-references/integration-contract.md` §2) or write files directly to `.aris/traces/citation-audit/_run/`. Respect the `--- trace:` parameter (default: `full`). ## Output Contract - `CITATION_AUDIT.md` (human-readable report) at paper root - `CITATION_AUDIT.json` (machine-readable ledger; schema below) at paper root - `.aris/traces/citation-audit/_runNN/` (per-entry review traces) - Optional: applied fixes to `references.bib` + `sec/*.tex` (with `--apply` flag) - Optional: `details.uncited_entries` field in JSON + `## Uncited Entries (opt-in)` MD section (with `--uncited` flag; field absent and section omitted when flag is unset) - `CITATION_AUDIT.html` (when `RENDER_HTML = true`, default) — auto-rendered single-file HTML view via `/render-html "CITATION_AUDIT.md" --json "CITATION_AUDIT.json"`. Full review gate. Sidecar `.review.json` carries render-fidelity verdict. **Non-blocking**: failures are logged and the audit MD + JSON remain the canonical outputs. ## Optional: Soft-Only Mode (— soft-only) **Default**: disabled. The audit emits the standard `KEEP / FIX / REPLACE / REMOVE` per-entry verdicts and a downstream caller (or the `--apply` path of Step 6) is free to mutate the bib. **Opt-in**: pass `— soft-only` (also accepts `— soft_only`) on invocation. This mode is designed for callers — notably `/resubmit-pipeline` Phase 1 — that operate under a **hard "freeze the bib" constraint**: if a citation is wrong-context, soften the surrounding sentence; do **not** change, add, or remove the cite itself. ### What soft-only changes The audit semantics are **unchanged**: existence + metadata + context-appropriateness checks all run, the reviewer is still invoked once per cited entry, and the per-entry KEEP/FIX/REPLACE/REMOVE verdicts are still computed and emitted exactly as in default mode. Only the **action layer** changes — soft-only translates each base verdict into a text-rewrite proposal instead of a bib mutation. ### Verdict translation table | Base verdict | Soft-only translation | Notes | |---|---|---| | `KEEP` | `keep_unchanged` | No action. Cite + sentence are both fine. | | `FIX` (metadata wrong) | `keep_metadata_drift_acknowledged` | Bib stays as-is. Flag for human review at submission time. Append note: "metadata drift detected but not fixed under --soft-only". | | `REPLACE` (wrong-context cite) | `soften_citing_sentence` | Per-occurrence sentence-rewrite proposal. For each `\cite{X}` in the body, locate the surrounding sentence and propose a softened version that does not claim what `X` actually establishes. | | `REMOVE` (cite refers to nonexistent paper — i.e., hallucinated citation) | `drop_cite_in_body_only` | The bib entry is left untouched (per the `--soft-only` invariant), but **the inline `\cite{X}` references in the body MUST be removed and the surrounding sentence rewritten** so it no longer relies on a nonexistent paper. Two sub-strategies: (a) drop the inline `\cite{X}` entirely and rephrase the sentence; (b) re-attribute to a different in-bib source that genuinely supports the claim. **Never** leave a `\cite{X}` to a hallucinated paper in the body. The bib entry itself stays (uncited entries are harmless and surfaced separately by uncited-detection). | ### Augmented JSON schema (under `--soft-only`) When the flag is set, the standard top-level fields (`audit_skill`, `verdict`, `reason_code`, `summary`, etc.) and the existing `details.per_entry` ledger are emitted exactly as in default mode. In addition: - A top-level `soft_only_mode: true` boolean is added. - `details` gains a `soft_only_actions` array — one entry per audited bib key, in the same order as `details.per_entry`. ```json { "audit_skill": "citation-audit", "verdict": "...", "soft_only_mode": true, "details": { "soft_only_actions": [ { "citekey": "smith2023example", "base_verdict": "REPLACE", "soft_action": "soften_citing_sentence", "occurrences": [ { "file": "sec/3.method.tex", "line": 142, "current_sentence": "Smith et al. [2023] proves a generic result that...", "proposed_rewrite": "Smith et al. [2023] discusses a related setting; while not directly applicable, the framing motivates...", "rationale": "Original sentence claims smith2023 'proves' a result, but smith2023 actually only conjectures it. Softened to 'discusses ... motivates' to remove the unsupported claim." } ] } ] } } ``` `soft_action` is one of `keep_unchanged | keep_metadata_drift_acknowledged | soften_citing_sentence | drop_cite_in_body_only`. For `keep_unchanged` and `keep_metadata_drift_acknowledged`, `occurrences` MAY be omitted or emitted as `[]`. For `soften_citing_sentence` and `drop_cite_in_body_only`, `occurrences` MUST list one object per `\cite{X}` site in the body that triggered the verdict. For `drop_cite_in_body_only`, the `proposed_rewrite` field shows the sentence with the inline `\cite{X}` removed (or replaced by a `\cite{Y}` to an alternate in-bib source). The `bib_entry_action` field is fixed to `"leave_as_is_per_soft_only"` — the bib record itself is never modified by the audit. ### Augmented human-readable report `CITATION_AUDIT.md` gains a new section `## Soft-Only Rewrites (— soft-only mode)` listing each occurrence with the proposed sentence rewrite for human approval. Example: ```markdown ## Soft-Only Rewrites (— soft-only mode) The bib file is frozen. The following sentence rewrites are proposed in lieu of bib edits. ### `smith2023example` — base verdict REPLACE → `soften_citing_sentence` - **File**: `sec/3.method.tex:142` - **Current**: "Smith et al. [2023] proves a generic result that..." - **Proposed**: "Smith et al. [2023] discusses a related setting; while not directly applicable, the framing motivates..." - **Rationale**: Original sentence claims smith2023 "proves" a result, but smith2023 actually only conjectures it. Softened to "discusses ... motivates" to remove the unsupported claim. ``` The existing per-entry verdict table in the Summary block is **kept** but FIX/REPLACE/REMOVE rows are annotated with a `🔒 bib frozen by --soft-only` badge so downstream readers see immediately why the bib was not mutated. ### Hard guarantees under `--soft-only` - **No `.bib` file mutations under any circumstance.** Step 6 ("Apply fixes (interactive)") is bypassed for the bib file; only `*.tex` rewrite proposals are produced (and still require human approval before any text edit). - If a downstream caller — including `paper-writing` Phase 6 or any wrapper — proposes a bib edit while `--soft-only` is set, **refuse it**: emit a one-line refusal in the trace and continue to the next finding. - The top-level `verdict` decision table is **unchanged**: a wrong-context cite still produces `FAIL` with `reason_code: wrong_context`. Soft-only does not silence the finding; it only constrains the action layer. - `--soft-only` composes with `--uncited`: both flags can be set together. Uncited entries remain detect-only and are not subject to soft-only translation (there is no citing sentence to soften). ## Submission Artifact Emission This skill **always** writes `paper/CITATION_AUDIT.json`, regardless of caller or detector outcome. A paper with no `.bib` file or no `\cite{...}` usage emits verdict `NOT_APPLICABLE`; silent skip is forbidden. `paper-writing` Phase 6 and `verify_paper_audits.sh` both rely on this artifact existing at a predictable path. The artifact conforms to the schema in `shared-references/assurance-contract.md`: ```json { "audit_skill": "citation-audit", "verdict": "PASS | WARN | FAIL | NOT_APPLICABLE | BLOCKED | ERROR", "reason_code": "all_entries_keep | metadata_drift | wrong_context | hallucinated | ...", "summary": "One-line human-readable verdict summary.", "audited_input_hashes": { "references.bib": "sha256:...", "main.tex": "sha256:...", "sections/3.related.tex": "sha256:..." }, "trace_path": ".aris/traces/citation-audit/_run/", "thread_id": "", "executor_model": "codex-gpt-5.6-sol", "executor_family": "openai", "reviewer_model": "gpt-5.6-sol", "reviewer_family": "openai", "review_independence": "same-family", "acceptance_status": "provisional", "reviewer_reasoning": "xhigh", "generated_at": "", "details": { "total_entries": , // count of audited cited entries (= |cited_keys|), NOT the bib-file size "per_entry": [ { "key": "madaan2023selfrefine", "verdict": "KEEP | FIX | REPLACE | REMOVE", "axis_failures": [ "CONTEXT" | "METADATA" | "EXISTENCE" ], "note": "..." }, ... ] } } ``` ### Optional: `details.uncited_entries` (only when `--uncited` is set) ```json "details": { ... "uncited_entries": [ {"key": "", "suggestion": "prune" | "check", "note": "..."} ], "uncited_entries_status": "ok" | "unavailable" } ``` Field semantics: - Both fields are **omitted entirely** when the flag is not set. The default schema does not include either key. - When the flag is set and the set-diff completes normally, `uncited_entries_status` is `"ok"` and `uncited_entries` lists the detected keys (possibly empty if every bib entry is cited). - When the flag is set but bib-key enumeration fails (per "Fallback when bib enumeration fails" above), `uncited_entries_status` is `"unavailable"` and `uncited_entries` is `[]`. Downstream consumers MUST treat `"unavailable"` identically to the field being absent: not blocking. - Downstream consumers MUST treat absence of either field as the only valid default state and MUST NOT raise on missing. - `suggestion` is advisory only; the verifier and `paper-writing` Phase 6 do not block on it. ### `audited_input_hashes` scope Hash the **declared input set** actually passed to this audit: the `.bib` file, `main.tex`, and every `sections/*.tex` file that supplied citation contexts. Do NOT hash extracted contexts from `/tmp` or other transient paths — if you need to stage extracted contexts, materialize them under `paper/.aris/` so the verifier can rehash reproducibly. Do NOT hash repo-wide unions or the reviewer's self-reported opened subset. **Path convention** (must match `verify_paper_audits.sh`): keys are **paths relative to the paper directory** (no `paper/` prefix — the verifier already resolves relative to the paper dir; prefixing produces `paper/paper/...` and false-fails as STALE). Use **absolute paths** for any file outside the paper dir. ### Verdict decision table | Input state | Verdict | `reason_code` example | |----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|-----------------------| | No `.bib` file or no `\cite{...}` usage | `NOT_APPLICABLE` | `no_citations` | | `.bib` file referenced but unreadable / missing | `BLOCKED` | `bib_unreadable` | | Every entry KEEP, all three axes green | `PASS` | `all_entries_keep` | | Only FIX verdicts (metadata drift, no context errors) | `WARN` | `metadata_drift` | | Any REPLACE or REMOVE (wrong-context or hallucinated entry) | `FAIL` | `wrong_context` | | Web lookups timed out / reviewer invocation failed | `ERROR` | `reviewer_error` | The `--uncited` flag does **not** appear in this table: uncited entries are advisory only and never alter the top-level verdict or reason_code. They surface exclusively through `details.uncited_entries` and the optional MD section. ### Thread independence Every invocation uses a fresh reviewer agent. Never reuse `send_input` across different bibliography entries. Do not accept prior audit outputs (PROOF_AUDIT, PAPER_CLAIM_AUDIT, EXPERIMENT_LOG) as input — the fresh thread preserves reviewer independence per `shared-references/reviewer-independence.md`. This skill never blocks by itself; `paper-writing` Phase 6 plus the verifier decide whether the verdict blocks finalization based on the `assurance` level. ## See Also - `/paper-claim-audit` — sibling skill for numerical claim verification - `/experiment-audit` — sibling skill for evaluation code integrity - `/result-to-claim` — claim verdict assignment from results - `shared-references/citation-discipline.md` — protocol document for citation hygiene - `shared-references/reviewer-independence.md` — cross-model review constraints