academic-verify

What this skill does

# academic-verify — Trace Claims to Source Data

> **Convention:** see [conventions/quality.md](../conventions/quality.md) for
> citation rules; every verdict cites the source data, not just the
> author's claim about the source data.
>
> **Convention:** see [conventions/brain-first.md](../conventions/brain-first.md)
> for the lookup chain. This skill enforces brain-first by checking
> existing brain pages before issuing a fresh web search.

## What this is

A claim-verification flow for academic / research statements. When a
book, article, or speaker cites a study or quotes a number, this skill
traces the claim through:

```
claim → publication → methodology section → raw data source → independent verification
```

At each step, it answers:

- **Where does this number come from?** (Self-generated? Survey? Government data?)
- **What's the baseline?** (Reduction from what? Over what time period?)
- **Is the raw data available?** (Public? Proprietary? "Available on request"?)
- **Has anyone independently verified it?** (Replication study? Government audit?)
- **Are there confounding factors?** (Other interventions, policy changes, COVID, sampling bias?)
- **Is the comparison fair?** (Cherry-picked comparison group? Survivorship bias?)

The output is a brain page under `concepts/<claim-slug>.md` that records
the claim, the trace, and the verdict — so future references to the
same claim can re-use the verified analysis.

## When to use this

- A book quotes a study and you want to confirm it's real and not
  miscited
- An article makes a quantified claim ("X reduced Y by 40%") that you
  want traced to the source data
- You're writing something that depends on a piece of research and you
  want to verify the underlying paper holds up
- You're updating a brain page that cites a research claim and you want
  to record the verification status alongside

## What this skill is NOT

- Not adversarial / oppo work. The point is rigor, not takedown.
- Not generic web research — use `perplexity-research` directly for
  open-ended topic exploration.
- Not a brain-only lookup — that's `gbrain query`.

## How it works (D7/α: pure routing through perplexity-research)

academic-verify is a thin orchestrator. The actual web search is done
by [perplexity-research](../perplexity-research/SKILL.md). academic-verify's
job is the *workflow*: scoping the claim precisely, sending it through
perplexity-research with citation-mode, then formatting the response
into a verdict-shaped brain page.

```
Step 1: Scope the claim
  Pin down EXACTLY what's being claimed:
    • Quote: who said what?
    • Source: which paper / dataset / survey?
    • Number: what specific quantity is claimed?
    • Period: over what time range?

Step 2: Brain-first lookup
  gbrain query "<paper title> OR <author name> OR <claim keywords>"
  If the brain has prior verification of this claim, reuse it.

Step 3: Invoke perplexity-research with citation-mode prompt
  Send the claim + brain context to perplexity-research with a prompt
  that explicitly asks for:
    • Original publication (title, authors, journal, year, DOI)
    • Methodology section summary
    • Raw data availability (public repo? proprietary?)
    • Independent replication status (Retraction Watch / PubPeer hits)
    • Citations of the paper that critique or contextualize it

Step 4: Format the verdict
  Write the result to concepts/<claim-slug>.md. The verdict is one of:
    • Verified — claim is accurate; raw data available; replication exists
    • Partially verified — claim correct on the underlying paper but
      methodology has known limits; record limits explicitly
    • Unverifiable — no public data, no replication; not enough to act
    • Misattributed — the claim cites a paper but the paper doesn't say that
    • Retracted / disputed — paper has known retraction or
      well-documented critique

Step 5: Cross-link to original sources
  Add the paper authors to people/ if they have brain pages, or create
  one if notable. Iron Law per conventions/quality.md.
```

## Output: brain page format

```markdown
---
title: "[Claim summary] — Verified"
type: research
date: YYYY-MM-DD
verdict: "verified|partial|unverifiable|misattributed|retracted"
brain_context_slugs: ["pages cited as context"]
---

# [Claim summary] — Verified

> One-line: the verdict + the bottom-line reason.

## The Claim

> Exact quote, exactly as stated, with source attribution.

## Trace

| Step | Finding | Source |
|------|---------|--------|
| Original publication | [Title, authors, year, DOI] | [URL] |
| Methodology | [1-line summary; flag obvious limits] | [URL] |
| Raw data | [Public repo / proprietary / available-on-request] | [URL] |
| Independent replication | [Replication studies and their results] | [URL] |
| Critical citations | [Papers that critique this work] | [URL] |

## Verdict

[Verified / Partially verified / Unverifiable / Misattributed / Retracted]

[1-2 paragraphs explaining WHY the verdict, with specific evidence.]

## Caveats

[Honest limits: what we couldn't verify, what would change the verdict.]

## See Also

- Original paper: [Title](DOI URL)
- Authors' brain pages: [Author 1](people/author-1.md), ...
- Related claims (verified or otherwise): [...]
```

## Useful databases (the agent uses these via perplexity-research)

| Database | What it has | URL pattern |
|----------|-------------|-------------|
| Retraction Watch | Retractions, corrections, expressions of concern | retractionwatch.com/?s=NAME |
| PubPeer | Anonymous post-publication peer review | pubpeer.com/search?q=NAME |
| OSF | Pre-registrations, open data, open materials | osf.io/search/?q=QUERY |
| Semantic Scholar | Citation analysis, paper metadata | api.semanticscholar.org |
| OpenAlex | Open citation data, institutional affiliations | api.openalex.org |
| Many Labs | Replication results for social psychology | osf.io/wx7ck/ |

## Standards (the rigor bar)

- **Verified** — only when the underlying paper exists, raw data is
  public OR an independent lab has confirmed the result, and the citing
  source represents the claim accurately.
- **Partial** — paper is real and findings stand, but the citation
  context oversells (e.g., "X causes Y" when the paper shows
  correlation, or "all studies find X" when it's one underpowered study).
- **Unverifiable** — the underlying number can't be traced to source
  data, no replication has been done, no independent confirmation
  exists. Not the same as "wrong" — say "we couldn't verify."
- **Misattributed** — the citation points to a paper, but the paper
  doesn't actually say what the citation claims. Common in policy briefs.
- **Retracted / disputed** — paper has been retracted, has a major
  expression-of-concern, or has well-documented critique that
  contradicts the headline finding.

Never claim a problem without evidence. The verification document
itself is the artifact — if the claim holds up, say so plainly. If it
doesn't, the trace speaks for itself.

## Anti-Patterns

- ❌ Skipping the brain-first lookup. Re-doing verification we've
  already done is wasted Perplexity spend.
- ❌ Bypassing perplexity-research and inventing the lookup. The
  citations from Perplexity are the evidence — without them, the
  verdict is just opinion.
- ❌ Stating "Verified" without confirming raw data availability.
  Replication trumps any single paper.
- ❌ Stating "Unverifiable" when you simply didn't look hard enough.
  The verdict is on the source, not on your search effort.

## Related skills

- `skills/perplexity-research/SKILL.md` — the actual web-search engine
  this skill routes through (D7/α: pure routing, no new infrastructure)
- `skills/citation-fixer/SKILL.md` — fixes citation FORMATTING; this
  skill checks whether the cited claim is true
- `skills/conventions/quality.md` — citation + back-link rules


## Contract

This skill guarantees:

- Routing matches the canonical triggers in the frontmatter.
- Output written under the director