Citation Check

Verify that citations support the exact claims they annotate.

The citation-check workflow validates sentence-level citation integrity and catches weak, invalid, or contradicted references.

How it works

The workflow performs a targeted citation audit:

  1. Claim-citation extraction — identifies factual statements and their attached references.
  2. Source verification — checks whether the cited source supports the exact wording and scope.
  3. Status labeling — tags pairs as valid, weak, invalid, or contradicted.
  4. Repair guidance — recommends replacement citations or safer claim wording.

This catches “looks cited” claims that are not truly supported.

Real examples

Example 1 (full draft check):

/citation-check outputs/my-draft.md
bohr citation-check outputs/my-draft.md

Example 2 (pre-publish brief check):

/citation-check outputs/q2-llm-brief.md
bohr citation-check outputs/q2-llm-brief.md

Expected output

Primary output file:

  • outputs/<slug>-citation-integrity.md

Typical structure:

  • claim-citation validation table
  • status counts
  • fix recommendations per failed pair
  • unresolved references needing manual review

Example snippet:

- Claim: "Method X reduces latency by 40% in production."
  - Citation: [7]
  - Status: Weak
  - Note: Source reports 40% only in synthetic benchmark, not production.
  - Fix: Qualify claim scope or add production-source citation.

Customization

You can request:

  • strict mode — fail any numeric claim without direct numeric support
  • section scope — “check only executive summary and conclusions”
  • source policy — “only accept peer-reviewed or official vendor docs”
  • output style — “include rewrite-ready replacement phrasing”

When to use

Run before final publication or external sharing when factual precision and traceability are mandatory.

Best used after /draft and before final verifier/reviewer passes.