Citation Audit
Audit an existing document's claims against its citations and report every mismatch: a reviewer pairs each cited claim with the citation it depends on and locks the audit rubric, a researcher opens each cited source and verifies the claim is actually supported, and a reviewer compiles a per-citation audit report with verdicts and fixes. The ordering matters because auditing without first pairing claims to citations misses unsupported claims, and a report without a fixed verdict scale is inconsistent; building the claim-citation pairing and rubric first makes the audit exhaustive and the report actionable. Use this for checking that citations support their claims, source-verification of a draft, catching citation drift or unsupported statements, and 'do these references actually back up the text' reviews.
How it runs
| # | Step | Who runs it | What happens |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scope the audit | Reviewer | pair each cited claim to its citation + lock the rubric |
| 2 | Verify each citation | Researcher | open each source, confirm it backs the paired claim |
| 3 | Compile the audit report | Reviewer | per-citation verdicts, justifying quotes, and fixes |
| 4 | Evaluate | Reviewer | Grade the deliverable against every acceptance criterion. All pass → finish; any fail → loop back and fix the gap. |
| 5 | Finish | Developer | All acceptance criteria met. Stamp a short summary and report DONE. |
Say something like "audit the citations" or "check citations support the claims" or "verify the references in this doc" or "citation accuracy check" or "are these sources legit" in chat to start it.