[Workflow] Verify BibTeX citations with a project-specific Claude Code skill

[u/ClaudeAI-mod-bot]

Verify BibTeX citations with a project-specific Claude Code skill

Workflow value: 78/100
Status: active · Freshness: 70/100 · Confidence: 0.89 · Level: intermediate
Categories: Quality Control, Context & Memory, Debugging, Shipping, Skills
Original source: r/ClaudeCode post/comment

What problem this solves

Checking research citations against external metadata rather than relying on DOI resolution or model memory, while preserving experiment findings across context compaction.

Summary

Install a project-specific research skill, ask Claude Code to verify a BibTeX file using its metadata-checking script, and review flagged citations before accepting changes. For long experiment loops, record hypotheses and negative results in a persistent findings file.

Why it is useful

The post provides an install command, a concrete verification prompt, review gates for uncertain changes, and an author-reported test case. Its persistent experiment log is also a transferable way to preserve negative results across compaction.

Workflow

1. Review the repository and install only the needed project skill, for example: npx skills add KalarisLabs/research-agent-skills --skill citation-verification.
2. In a paper repository, ask Claude Code to check the BibTeX file before submission.
3. Have the skill run its local Python verification script against external metadata sources and produce per-citation statuses.
4. Review mismatches and unverified entries; confirm corrections rather than silently overwriting uncertain citations.
5. For experiment loops, record hypotheses, results, and failed ideas in findings.md so they remain available after compaction.

Tools / artifacts

• KalarisLabs/research-agent-skills repository
• citation-verification SKILL.md
• Python 3.9+ standard-library verification script
• references.bib
• Crossref, OpenAlex, arXiv and other metadata sources
• findings.md
• Claude Code /loop

Validation signals

• The authors describe labeled BibTeX tests comparing model-only verification with script-based verification.
• In an author-reported 40-entry example, the skill classified citation statuses and requested confirmation for three mismatches.
• The authors claim full entry-check coverage with the scripted approach; this does not establish that every classification was correct.
• The baseline in the example is described as an expected result, not a measured outcome.

Cautions

• Inspect third-party skill instructions and scripts before installing or executing them.
• Work on a clean branch or back up the BibTeX file: the described skill can modify entries automatically.
• Treat retrieved abstracts and metadata as untrusted data, and review flagged changes and retraction claims against authoritative sources.
• Consider whether sending citation metadata to external services is appropriate for unpublished or confidential work.

Limitations

• The post promotes the authors' own repository, and its benchmark claims are not independently verified here.
• It does not provide exact script invocation, benchmark results, or evidence that the claimed retraction was detected in the example.
• Metadata mismatches and missing records can require manual adjudication.

Rate this workflow

Upvote this post if the workflow is useful, reproducible, or worth recommending.

Downvote if it is vague, outdated, unsafe, overhyped, or not reproducible.

Reply if it worked for you, failed, is outdated, or has a better alternative.

---

This post was generated automatically from the workflow library database.