jy00295005/decision-grade-memory/dgm-citation-audit

DGM Citation Audit

Use this skill when the task is to audit citation quality in a draft, review note, or manuscript section.

When to use

Trigger this skill when the user asks to:

• audit citations
• find unsupported claims
• identify weakly supported claims
• decide which sources are strong enough to keep
• update references/library.bib conservatively

Typical repository inputs:

• manuscript/
• references/library.bib
• references/notes/

Typical outputs:

• a citation audit note in references/notes/
• conservative .bib updates

Core rules

• No invented references.
• No fake numeric placeholders.
• Prefer formal academic sources over product pages or generic web summaries.
• If source attribution is uncertain, mark it uncertain instead of guessing.
• Do not make the bibliography look fuller by adding unverified entries.
• Separate these categories clearly:
• claim needs citation
• claim is weakly supported
• source is strong enough to retain
• source needs replacement or verification

Workflow

1. Read the target draft first.
2. Mark claims in four buckets:

• clearly supported
• citation needed
• weakly supported
• should be softened or removed

1. Cross-check cited author/year forms against actual verified records.
2. Update references/library.bib only when metadata are verified.
3. Produce an audit note that tells the next writer exactly what to fix.

Preferred audit structure

• Claims that need citations
• Unsupported or weakly supported claims
• Sources strong enough to keep
• Places where more formal references are needed
• Bibliography changes made
• Uncertain areas that were intentionally left unresolved

Repository-specific guidance

• Default output path:
• references/notes/<draft_name>_citation_audit.md
• When a claim is conceptually useful but weakly supported, prefer softening the wording instead of forcing a citation.
• In this repo, review-analysis writing should preserve reviewer trust over rhetorical sharpness.