Audit a references.md file to verify that all cited URLs are real, accessible, and actually support the claims attributed to them.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add sethmblack/paks-skills --skill analyze-references --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Analyze References?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/sethmblack-analyze-references)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: analyze-references
description: Audit a references.md file to verify that all cited URLs are real, accessible, and actually support the claims attributed to them.
license: MIT
metadata:
version: 1.0.3383
author: sethmblack
repository: https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords:
- analyze-references
- writing
---
# Analyze References
Audit a references.md file to verify that all cited URLs are real, accessible, and actually support the claims attributed to them.
**Token Budget:** ~400 tokens
**Purpose:** Quality control for fact-checking; catch hallucinated sources
---
## When to Use
- After creating a references.md file
- Auditing existing expert persona references
- "Verify these sources are real"
- "Check for hallucinated URLs"
- Quality control before publishing
---
## The Problem
LLMs can hallucinate plausible-looking URLs and citations that:
- Don't exist at all (404)
- Exist but don't contain the claimed information
- Are real sites but wrong pages
- Have correct domains but fabricated paths
This skill systematically verifies each reference is real and accurate.
---
## Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| references_file | Yes | Path to the references.md file to audit |
| thoroughness | No | "quick" (spot-check) or "full" (every URL) |
---
## Audit Protocol
### Step 1: Extract All URLs
Parse the references.md file and extract every URL cited. Group by category:
- Wikipedia links
- Encyclopedia/reference sites (Britannica, etc.)
- Official sources (company sites, .gov, etc.)
- News articles
- Books/publications
- Other
### Step 2: Verify URL Existence
For each URL:
1. **Fetch the URL** using WebFetch
2. **Check for 404/errors** - Does the page exist?
3. **If redirected** - Note the redirect destination
### Step 3: Verify Content Match
For URLs that exist:
1. **Search for key terms** from the claim on the page
2. **Confirm the page actually supports** the cited fact
3. **Flag mismatches** where URL exists but doesn't contain claimed info
### Step 4: Categorize Results
| Status | Meaning | Action |
|--------|---------|--------|
| ✓ VERIFIED | URL exists and supports claim | None |
| ⚠ REDIRECT | URL redirects elsewhere | Update URL |
| ⚠ PARTIAL | Page exists but claim not found verbatim | Review manually |
| ✗ BROKEN | 404 or page doesn't exist | Find replacement or remove |
| ✗ MISMATCH | Page exists but contradicts claim | Correct the claim |
---
## Workflow
### Step 1: Gather and Review Inputs
Collect all relevant information:
- Review the provided data and context
- Identify key parameters and constraints
- Clarify any ambiguities or missing information
- Establish success criteria
### Step 2: Analyze the Situation
Perform systematic analysis:
- Identify patterns and relationships
- Evaluate against established frameworks
- Consider multiple perspectives
- Document key findings
### Step 3: Generate Recommendations
Create actionable outputs:
- Synthesize insights from analysis
- Prioritize recommendations by impact
- Ensure recommendations are specific and measurable
- Consider implementation feasibility
## Output Format
```markdown
## References Audit: [Expert Name]
**File:** [path to references.md]
**Date:** [audit date]
**Thoroughness:** [quick/full]
### Summary
| Status | Count |
|--------|-------|
| ✓ Verified | X |
| ⚠ Needs Review | X |
| ✗ Broken/Invalid | X |
| **Total** | X |
### Broken or Invalid URLs
| Original URL | Status | Issue | Suggested Fix |
|--------------|--------|-------|---------------|
| [URL] | 404 | Page not found | [replacement or remove] |
| [URL] | MISMATCH | Claim not supported | [correct claim or new source] |
### URLs Needing Review
| URL | Issue | Notes |
|-----|-------|-------|
| [URL] | Redirect | Now points to [new URL] |
| [URL] | Partial match | Claim about X not found verbatim |
### Verified URLs
[List of URLs confirmed valid - can be collapsed/summarized]
### Recommendations
1. [Specific fix needed]
2. [Another fix]
```
---
## Common Hallucination Patterns
Watch for these red flags:
| Pattern | Example | Why Suspicious |
|---------|---------|----------------|
| Too-specific paths | `/article/2024/specific-fact-123` | LLMs invent plausible paths |
| Round dates in URLs | `/2020/01/01/` | Suspiciously clean dates |
| Quote in URL | `britannica.com/quote/exact-words` | Quotes aren't typically in URLs |
| Mixed domain styles | `en.wiki.org` vs `en.wikipedia.org` | Slight domain errors |
| Archived versions | `web.archive.org/...` | May not have actually checked |
---
## Quick Audit (Spot-Check)
For "quick" thoroughness:
1. Check all Wikipedia URLs (easy to verify)
2. Check any URL that looks suspiciously specific
3. Spot-check 20% of remaining URLs randomly
4. Check all URLs for claims marked as "key facts"
---
## Outputs
**Primary Output:** A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.
**Format:**
```markdown
## Analysis: [Topic]
### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]
### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
```
**Example output:** See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.
## Constraints
- Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
- Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
- Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
- Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
- Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
- Recognize the limits of the methodology
## Example
**Input:**
- input_data: [Specific example input]
- context: [Relevant background]
**Output:**
[Detailed demonstration of the skill in action - showing the complete process and final result]
**Why this works:**
This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill by [explanation of what makes it effective].
## Integration
This skill is part of the expert creation workflow. Run after:
- `fact-check-expert` creates references.md
- Before finalizing any expert persona
Can be invoked standalone for auditing existing references.
---Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!