version: "1.0.0" name: citation-writer description: Write a CITATION.cff file (Citation File Format) so academics and researchers can properly cite your software in papers. Structured process: gather metadata → format per CFF spec → validate → self-review. Use when the user wants to add citation support, says "citation", "CITATION.cff", "cite this project", "学术引用", or "how to cite this software".

Citation Writer — Academic Citation for Software

A simple process for creating CITATION.cff files that make your software citable in academic papers.

The Workflow (Must Follow In Order)

Phase 0: Hard Gate — Relevance Check

<HARD-GATE> CITATION.cff is ONLY for projects that could be cited in research papers. Skip if: this is a personal blog, a game mod, a config repo, or a learning project. Proceed if: this is a library, framework, tool, dataset, or algorithm that researchers might reference. </HARD-GATE>

Phase 0.5: Study Real-World Examples (MANDATORY)

Before writing, clone and study the equivalent file or workflow from established open-source projects. Extract what real projects actually do — not what templates say they should do. Present findings before proceeding.

Phase 1: Metadata Gathering

Ask one at a time:

Q1: Who are the authors? Format: given-name family-name. At minimum, the project creator. Order matters — first author gets top billing.

Q2: What's the official title? Use the project name as it should appear in a paper's reference list.

Q3: Any DOI? If the project has a Zenodo/GitHub DOI or published paper DOI. If no: "Leave blank — I'll generate one from Zenodo later."

Q4: Version? Current release version. If no release yet: leave as "0.1.0" or omit.

Phase 2: Draft

cff-version: 1.2.0
title: Project Name
message: >-
  If you use this software in your research, please cite it using the
  metadata below.
type: software
authors:
  - given-names: FirstName
    family-names: LastName
    email: user@example.com
    orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0000-0000-0000
    affiliation: University/Company Name (optional)
repository-code: https://github.com/USER/REPO
url: https://project-website.com
abstract: >-
  One-paragraph description of what the software does — similar to
  an abstract in a paper.
keywords:
  - keyword1
  - keyword2
  - keyword3
license: MIT
version: 1.0.0
date-released: 2026-06-07

Field notes:

Phase 3: Self-Review

[ ] cff-version is 1.2.0 (latest)
[ ] All authors explicitly agreed to be listed
[ ] Author names use given-names + family-names (not just a GitHub handle)
[ ] ORCID IDs are valid URLs (if included)
[ ] DOI is correct (if included) — not a repo URL, a real DOI
[ ] YAML is valid (check indentation, no tabs)
[ ] Abstract is descriptive enough for a researcher to understand
[ ] Keywords are relevant (not generic like "software", "tool")

Phase 4: Validation

# Validate with the official CFF tool (if installed)
cffconvert --validate

If cffconvert is not available, manually check:

• YAML syntax (consistent indentation, colons followed by space)
• All URLs are valid and accessible
• Date format is YYYY-MM-DD

Phase 5: Zenodo DOI (Optional but Recommended)

For projects without a DOI, set up automatic archiving:

1. Go to https://zenodo.org → Sign in with GitHub
2. Enable the repository for auto-archiving
3. Create a GitHub Release → Zenodo auto-archives and assigns a DOI
4. Add the DOI to CITATION.cff

With Zenodo auto-archiving, every GitHub Release gets a unique DOI.

Phase 6: User Review

"CITATION.cff ready. When someone views the repo on GitHub, they'll see a 'Cite this repository' button. For a real DOI, set up Zenodo auto-archiving — takes 5 minutes."

GitHub Integration

When CITATION.cff is in the repo root, GitHub automatically shows:

• A "Cite this repository" button in the sidebar
• Both APA and BibTeX formats, auto-generated from your CFF file

Users can click → copy → paste into their paper. No extra setup needed.

Anti-Patterns

Platform Integration

User Interaction Rule

Use AskUserQuestion tool for ALL multiple-choice decisions. Never present A/B/C text options when structured choices exist. One question per decision, lead with a recommendation, include a brief reason.