Grounded research

Skill ahoyvarun/grounded-research/grounded-research

A Claude Skill that verifies research writing - catches fabricted citations, unsupported claims and hidden contradictions

Install

npx -y skills add ahoyvarun/grounded-research --skill grounded-research

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Fact-check and verify any research text, report draft, literature review, or AI-generated answer by running it through a five-stage grounding pipeline: decompose into atomic claims, check each against provided sources, audit every citation for existence and accuracy, surface contradictions between sources, and produce one auditable verification report with a groundedness score. Use this skill whenever the user wants to check accuracy, verify claims, audit citations or a bibliography, confirm a text is supported by its sources, detect fabricated references, find contradictions across sources, or "check for hallucinations" in research writing. Trigger on "fact-check this", "verify this", "is this accurate?", "are these citations real?", "do these sources agree?", "audit this draft", or any request to confirm that claims trace back to real, correctly-cited evidence. Runs the whole pipeline end to end from a single instruction.

SKILL.md

11.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Grounded Research

A five-stage discipline for verifying research writing. You ask your friend who tells confident stories whether each part is actually true — and this skill is the careful checker that goes line by line so confidence never gets mistaken for correctness.

On the word "hallucination." No process can guarantee a text is hallucination-free, and claiming so would itself be an unverifiable claim. This skill does something honest instead: it breaks a text into checkable pieces, tests each against the sources and the citation record, and reports — clearly — what was verified, what failed, and what could not be checked. The goal is auditability, not a reassuring number.

Run all five stages in order. Each stage updates a shared Claims Ledger (claims_ledger.json) — a running JSON record that carries results from one stage to the next. Stages can also be run individually if the user asks for just a citation check or just a grounding check, but the default for "fact-check this" is the full pipeline.

Stage 1 Decompose  → break text into atomic, checkable claims
Stage 2 Ground     → is each claim supported by the provided sources?
Stage 3 Audit cites→ do cited works exist, match metadata, and support the claim?
Stage 4 Contradict → do sources (or the text) disagree in hidden ways?
Stage 5 Report     → one auditable verdict: groundedness score + what to fix

What you need from the user

The text to check (pasted, or a file).
The sources it should be based on (files in /mnt/user-data/uploads, pasted text, or — only if the user explicitly authorizes web use — fetched pages). For Stage 2 you cannot proceed without sources; if they're missing, ask. Never substitute your own parametric knowledge for the provided corpus — "I happen to know this is true" is the exact failure this skill exists to catch.
For Stage 3, web access lets the citation script confirm a reference exists. Without it, mark existence UNVERIFIED rather than guessing.

The Claims Ledger schema is defined in references/ledger_schema.md. Read it before Stage 1 so the JSON you produce is consistent across stages.

Stage 1 — Decompose into atomic claims

Hallucinations hide in compound sentences. "Smith et al. (2021) showed in a study of 4,000 patients that the treatment cut mortality 30%" looks like one statement but contains five independently checkable assertions. A fabrication in any one of them survives review if the sentence is checked as a unit. This mirrors FActScore (Min et al., EMNLP 2023), which defines an atomic fact as a short sentence conveying one piece of information and checks each one independently.

Read the whole text first for context (so pronouns resolve correctly).
Split every sentence into atomic claims. Each claim must assert exactly one thing, be self-contained (replace "it"/"they" with the actual referent), and preserve the original meaning — never strengthen or weaken a hedge ("may reduce" stays "may reduce").
Classify each by type: factual, numeric (always isolate numbers, dates, percentages — highest hallucination risk), causal, attributed (credits a source → routed to Stage 3), definitional, or normative (opinion → exempt from grounding, labeled OPINION at the end).
Record citation strings verbatim in cites — including any errors; Stage 3 needs the original to detect mismatches.
Do not verify yet. Judging while extracting causes silent "fixing" instead of flagging. Every claim leaves Stage 1 as UNCHECKED.

Stage 2 — Check grounding against the sources

Operationalizes the AIS framework (Rashkin et al., Computational Linguistics 2023): output about the external world must be verifiable against an identified source, via the test "According to [source], [claim]" — is that faithful? The hallucination survey (Ji et al., ACM Computing Surveys 2023) distinguishes intrinsic hallucination (contradicts the source) from extrinsic (the source can't verify it) — they get different labels because they need different fixes.

Read every source in full, then label each claim's grounding.status:

SUPPORTED — a specific passage entails it. Record the verbatim span (≤25 words) and its location. Quoting forces real grounding; paraphrase can drift toward the claim and manufacture false support.
PARTIALLY_SUPPORTED — part holds, part doesn't. A numeric claim whose exact number isn't in the source goes here, with the discrepancy named.
UNSUPPORTED — sources neither confirm nor contradict (extrinsic). May still be true in the world; it just isn't grounded here. Say so; do not rescue it with outside knowledge.
CONTRADICTED — a passage asserts the opposite (intrinsic). Most serious; record the contradicting span.
NOT_APPLICABLE — opinion/definitional claims the corpus isn't expected to adjudicate.

Be adversarial about numbers, names, and dates. "30%" is not SUPPORTED by "about a third." A 2021 claim is not supported by a 2019 source.

Stage 3 — Audit the citations

Fabricated citations are the signature research hallucination: fluent, authoritative, pointing at a paper that was never written — or a real paper that says something else. Check three things per citation, in order of severity: existence → metadata (authors, year, title, venue, DOI) → claim support (does the work actually say what it's cited for?).

Use the bundled script for existence + metadata when web access is authorized:

python scripts/verify_citations.py --input citations.json --output audit.json
# or parse a bibliography directly:
python scripts/verify_citations.py --bibliography refs.txt --output audit.json

It queries Crossref and arXiv (both free, no key) and returns, per citation, whether it resolved and a field-by-field metadata match. Read the script's header for the exact I/O schema. It checks existence and metadata only — claim support (check 3) is a reading task: open the real source and compare it to the claim, as in Stage 2.

Without web access, DO NOT guess whether a citation is real. Audit what's checkable offline (internal consistency, DOI/arXiv-ID syntax, match against any provided PDFs) and mark existence UNVERIFIED — no web access.

Label each in citation.status: VERIFIED · METADATA_MISMATCH · MISATTRIBUTED (real paper, wrong claim) · NOT_FOUND (likely fabricated) · UNVERIFIED. Never upgrade to VERIFIED from familiarity — recognizing a title is not resolving it. Never invent a DOI or URL to "complete" a citation.

Stage 4 — Surface contradictions

The subtle failure isn't the invented fact (earlier stages catch those) — it's false consensus: a smooth synthesis that reconciles sources which actually disagree, silently picking a side or averaging incompatible numbers. The consistency principle behind SelfCheckGPT (Manakul et al., EMNLP 2023) applies: divergence is a signal to surface, not smooth.

Find three kinds: text-vs-source (collect the CONTRADICTED claims from Stage 2), source-vs-source (two relied-on sources disagree — highest value), and internal (the text contradicts itself; two ledger claims are incompatible).

Rules: flag every disagreement, never adjudicate it away. Report numeric conflicts side by side with sources ("A: 30%, B: 18%") — never a blended "around 20–30%". Distinguish real contradiction from apparent (different scope, period, or population can make two true statements look incompatible — note the reconciling dimension if one genuinely exists; otherwise mark UNRESOLVED). Record in cross_source.

Stage 5 — Write the verification report

Produce a verdict the reader can act on, plus an honest account of the check's own limits. Embodies the FActScore principle: precision as the proportion of atomic units supported — made transparent per claim, not collapsed into one opaque figure.

Combine the three checks into each claim's final_label: VERIFIED (supported, no citation failure, no conflict) · PARTIALLY VERIFIED (partial support or minor citation mismatch) · UNVERIFIED (not grounded) · DISPUTED (in an unresolved contradiction) · FAILED (contradicted, or citation not found/misattributed) · OPINION (normative; reported separately, not scored).

Compute Groundedness = VERIFIED ÷ (all claims except OPINION) and ALWAYS show the full breakdown table and coverage caveats beside it — never the score alone. Save verification_report.md using this structure:

# Verification Report — <document>
## Bottom line
<2–3 sentences; lead with the most serious finding>
## Groundedness score
**X/N verified (P%)** — <what this covers and doesn't>
| Verdict | Count |  (Verified / Partial / Unverified / Disputed / Failed / Opinion)
## 🔴 Must fix (failures)
## 🔵 Resolve before publishing (disputes)
## ⚪ Needs a citation (unverified)
## 🟡 Tighten (partial)
## ✅ Verified
## Method & limits  (stages run · web access y/n · sources · what was NOT checked)

Honesty rules — the whole point: never inflate the score by excluding inconvenient claims (only OPINION is excluded, and its count is shown); never report VERIFIED for a check that didn't run; the bottom line is governed by the worst finding, not the average (one fabricated citation outweighs fifty verified claims for trust); never claim the text is "hallucination-free" — claim only "no unsupported or contradicted claims were found among the N examined, using the sources provided."

Worked example

examples/flawed_paragraph.md is a paragraph with four planted flaws (a fabricated citation, a contradicted statistic, a wrong year, an overstatement) plus sound claims. examples/demo/verification_report.md is the report this pipeline produces for it — it catches all four and passes the sound claims (groundedness 3/9, correct for a paragraph built to fail). Use it as a sanity check that the skill is working.

References (all verified to exist with correct venue/year)

Min et al. 2023. FActScore. EMNLP 2023, 12076–12100. arXiv:2305.14251.
Rashkin et al. 2023. Measuring Attribution in NLG Models. Computational Linguistics 49(4), 777–840. DOI: 10.1162/coli_a_00486.
Manakul et al. 2023. SelfCheckGPT. EMNLP 2023, 9004–9017. arXiv:2303.08896.
Ji et al. 2023. Survey of Hallucination in NLG. ACM Computing Surveys 55(12), Article 248. DOI: 10.1145/3571730.
Es et al. 2024. RAGAs. EACL 2024 (System Demonstrations), 150–158. arXiv:2309.15217.