Academic Verify

---
name: academic-verify
version: 0.1.0
description: Verify a research claim or academic citation by tracing it through publication → methodology → raw data → independent replication. Routes through the agent's web search tooling for the actual lookup, then formats results as a citation-checked brain page. Use when a book/article/conversation cites a study and you want to confirm the claim is real, replicated, and accurately characterized.
triggers:
  - "verify this academic claim"
  - "check this study"
  - "academic verify"
  - "validate citation"
  - "is this study real"
  - "Retraction Watch"
tools:
  - search
  - query
  - page_get
  - page_put
  - link
mutating: true
writes_pages: true
writes_to:
  - concepts/
---

# academic-verify — Trace Claims to Source Data

> **Convention:** see conventions/quality.md (via `get_skill conventions/quality`)
> for citation rules; every verdict cites the source data, not just the
> author's claim about the source data.
>
> **Convention:** see conventions/brain-first.md (via `get_skill conventions/brain-first`)
> for the lookup chain. This skill enforces brain-first by checking
> existing brain pages before issuing a fresh web search.

## What this is

A claim-verification flow for academic / research statements. When a
book, article, or speaker cites a study or quotes a number, this skill
traces the claim through:

```
claim → publication → methodology section → raw data source → independent verification
```

At each step, it answers:

- **Where does this number come from?** (Self-generated? Survey? Government data?)
- **What's the baseline?** (Reduction from what? Over what time period?)
- **Is the raw data available?** (Public? Proprietary? "Available on request"?)
- **Has anyone independently verified it?** (Replication study? Government audit?)
- **Are there confounding factors?** (Other interventions, policy changes, COVID, sampling bias?)
- **Is the comparison fair?** (Cherry-picked comparison group? Survivorship bias?)

The output is a brain page at `concepts/<claim-slug>` (written via
`page_put`) that records the claim, the trace, and the verdict — so
future references to the same claim can re-use the verified analysis.

## When to use this

- A book quotes a study and you want to confirm it's real and not
  miscited
- An article makes a quantified claim ("X reduced Y by 40%") that you
  want traced to the source data
- You're writing something that depends on a piece of research and you
  want to verify the underlying paper holds up
- You're updating a brain page that cites a research claim and you want
  to record the verification status alongside

## What this skill is NOT

- Not adversarial / oppo work. The point is rigor, not takedown.
- Not generic web research — use the agent's web search tooling directly
  for open-ended topic exploration.
- Not a brain-only lookup — that's the `query` tool.

## How it works (thin orchestration over the agent's web search)

academic-verify is a thin orchestrator. The actual web lookup is done by
the agent's own web search tooling (WebSearch / WebFetch or equivalent).
academic-verify's job is the *workflow*: scoping the claim precisely,
running a citation-focused research pass, then formatting the response
into a verdict-shaped brain page.

```
Step 1: Scope the claim
  Pin down EXACTLY what's being claimed:
    • Quote: who said what?
    • Source: which paper / dataset / survey?
    • Number: what specific quantity is claimed?
    • Period: over what time range?

Step 2: Brain-first lookup
  query "<paper title> OR <author name> OR <claim keywords>"
  If the brain has prior verification of this claim, reuse it.

Step 3: Run a citation-mode web research pass
  Send the claim + brain context through the agent's web search tooling
  with a prompt that explicitly asks for:
    • Original publication (title, authors, journal, year, DOI)
    • Methodology section summary
    • Raw data availability (public repo? proprietary?)
    • Independent replication status (Retraction Watch / PubPeer hits)
    • Citations of the paper that critique or contextualize it

Step 4: Format the verdict
  Write the result via page_put to concepts/<claim-slug>. The verdict is one of:
    • Verified — claim is accurate; raw data available; replication exists
    • Partially verified — claim correct on the underlying paper but
      methodology has known limits; record limits explicitly
    • Unverifiable — no public data, no replication; not enough to act
    • Misattributed — the claim cites a paper but the paper doesn't say that
    • Retracted / disputed — paper has known retraction or
      well-documented critique

Step 5: Cross-link to original sources
  Add the paper authors to people/ if they have brain pages, or create
  one if notable. Back-link with the `link` tool. Iron Law per
  conventions/quality.md.
```

## Output: brain page format

```markdown
---
title: "[Claim summary] — Verified"
type: research
date: YYYY-MM-DD
verdict: "verified|partial|unverifiable|misattributed|retracted"
brain_context_slugs: ["pages cited as context"]
---

# [Claim summary] — Verified

> One-line: the verdict + the bottom-line reason.

## The Claim

> Exact quote, exactly as stated, with source attribution.

## Trace

| Step | Finding | Source |
|------|---------|--------|
| Original publication | [Title, authors, year, DOI] | [URL] |
| Methodology | [1-line summary; flag obvious limits] | [URL] |
| Raw data | [Public repo / proprietary / available-on-request] | [URL] |
| Independent replication | [Replication studies and their results] | [URL] |
| Critical citations | [Papers that critique this work] | [URL] |

## Verdict

[Verified / Partially verified / Unverifiable / Misattributed / Retracted]

[1-2 paragraphs explaining WHY the verdict, with specific evidence.]

## Caveats

[Honest limits: what we couldn't verify, what would change the verdict.]

## See Also

- Original paper: [Title](DOI URL)
- Authors' brain pages: [Author 1](people/author-1.md), ...
- Related claims (verified or otherwise): [...]
```

## Useful databases (the agent reaches these via its web search tooling)

| Database | What it has | URL pattern |
|----------|-------------|-------------|
| Retraction Watch | Retractions, corrections, expressions of concern | retractionwatch.com/?s=NAME |
| PubPeer | Anonymous post-publication peer review | pubpeer.com/search?q=NAME |
| OSF | Pre-registrations, open data, open materials | osf.io/search/?q=QUERY |
| Semantic Scholar | Citation analysis, paper metadata | api.semanticscholar.org |
| OpenAlex | Open citation data, institutional affiliations | api.openalex.org |
| Many Labs | Replication results for social psychology | osf.io/wx7ck/ |

## Standards (the rigor bar)

- **Verified** — only when the underlying paper exists, raw data is
  public OR an independent lab has confirmed the result, and the citing
  source represents the claim accurately.
- **Partial** — paper is real and findings stand, but the citation
  context oversells (e.g., "X causes Y" when the paper shows
  correlation, or "all studies find X" when it's one underpowered study).
- **Unverifiable** — the underlying number can't be traced to source
  data, no replication has been done, no independent confirmation
  exists. Not the same as "wrong" — say "we couldn't verify."
- **Misattributed** — the citation points to a paper, but the paper
  doesn't actually say what the citation claims. Common in policy briefs.
- **Retracted / disputed** — paper has been retracted, has a major
  expression-of-concern, or has well-documented critique that
  contradicts the headline finding.

Never claim a problem without evidence. The verification document
itself is the artifact — if the claim holds up, say so plainly. If it
doesn't, the trace speaks for itself.

## Anti-Patterns

- ❌ Skipping the brain-first lookup. Re-doing verification we've
  already done is wasted research spend.
- ❌ Skipping the web lookup and inventing the trace. The citations
  from the research pass are the evidence — without them, the verdict
  is just opinion.
- ❌ Stating "Verified" without confirming raw data availability.
  Replication trumps any single paper.
- ❌ Stating "Unverifiable" when you simply didn't look hard enough.
  The verdict is on the source, not on your search effort.

## Related skills

- `skills/citation-fixer/SKILL.md` — fixes citation FORMATTING; this
  skill checks whether the cited claim is true
- `skills/conventions/quality.md` — citation + back-link rules


## Contract

This skill guarantees:

- Routing matches the canonical triggers in the frontmatter.
- Output written under the directories listed in `writes_to:` (when applicable).
- Conventions referenced (`quality.md`, `brain-first.md`, `_brain-filing-rules.md`) are followed.
- Privacy contract preserved: no real names, no host-specific filesystem path literals.

The full behavior contract is documented in the body sections above; this section exists for the conformance test.

## Output Format

The skill's output shape is documented inline in the body sections above (see "Output", "Brain page format", or equivalent). The literal section header here exists for the conformance test.