Scholarflow citation review

Skill zhoy0409-debug/scholarflow-skills/skills/scholarflow-citation-review

ScholarFlow Skills by Zhoy: reusable Agent Skills for literature review, academic writing, figures, bioinformatics, and research deliverables.

Install

npx -y skills add zhoy0409-debug/scholarflow-skills --skill scholarflow-citation-review

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

Use when a researcher needs citations or a reference list audited for source verification, metadata consistency, journal style, or evidence-to-claim alignment.

SKILL.md

2.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

ScholarFlow Citation Review

Use this skill to check citations already attached to a manuscript or to build a verified citation plan before drafting.

Establish The Review Scope

Identify the manuscript language, required journal style, source format, and whether the user needs:

a reference-list audit;
verification of specific records;
claim-to-evidence checking;
formatted references for a target journal; or
a citation plan for an unfinished section.

Ask only for information that changes the result. Do not infer a journal style from a publisher name alone.

Load The Working Guidance

Read manifest.yaml, then load every item under always_load. Use the relevant references.on_demand item only when the request requires it. Do not load the entire reference library for a short audit.

Audit In This Order

Existence: resolve DOI, PMID, publisher record, or another stable identifier.
Metadata: compare author list, title, journal, year, volume, pages, and identifier with the authoritative record.
Claim support: label each citation as direct support, contextual support, methodological precedent, or insufficient support.
Placement: make sure a reader can tell which statement the citation supports.
Style: apply the target journal's verified author instructions only after metadata is correct.

Never convert a weak, indirect, or inaccessible source into a strong claim. Flag it instead.

Return Findings First

Use four groups:

Blocked: nonexistent, unverifiable, or materially incorrect citations.
Needs verification: incomplete metadata, unresolved identifiers, or inaccessible full text.
Evidence mismatch: citations that do not support the surrounding claim.
Ready: records that pass the requested check.

For every non-ready item, give the exact field or claim that needs attention and the conservative next action. Keep a compact evidence ledger with the source URL or identifier so the user can re-check it.