# Review Citation Links and Evidence Gaps

Saved citations can contain broken links, incomplete metadata, or sources that do not support the surrounding claims. This skill guides Citation reviews that separate saved data issues from evidence judgments and disclose inaccessible sources.

## Install

```bash
npx skillstore add reload-apps/citation-evidence
```

## Metadata

- Status: approved
- Slug: reload-apps-citation-evidence
- Skillstore revision: r1
- Version status: missing
- Tree hash: be0eff85fd9e3ef1a97b1062c7c1661a62b64d18284bfa865d7b185cbf55dd35
- Author: reload-apps
- GitHub username: reload-apps
- License: MIT
- Repository: https://github.com/reload-apps/citation-plugins/tree/d97dd78bc566fcc8b33fe87424d1a09fde6db298/skills/citation-evidence
- Ref: 45dcc884ec6fa1961423f1fee8072918692dac22
- Supported tools: Claude, Codex, Claude Code
- Audit status: complete
- Agent install advisory: allowed
- Manual install advisory: allowed
- Artifact signature: available
- Audit attestation: unavailable
- Human verification: not\_verified
- Risk factors: external\_commands
- Quality score: 78
- Quality tier: bronze
- Public page: https://skillstore.pages.dev/skills/reload-apps-citation-evidence
- Manifest: https://skillstore.pages.dev/api/skills/reload-apps-citation-evidence/manifest

## Capabilities

- Read Citation documents and saved sources through available MCP tools or CLI commands.
- Check missing citation links, incomplete metadata, unused sources, and duplicate DOI metadata.
- Follow pagination and retain snapshot identifiers across citation check pages.
- Compare document versions and restart reviews when content changes.
- Connect material claims to accessible source passages and identify evidence gaps.
- Report findings with source IDs, observed problems, next steps, and review scope.

## Use Cases

- Review Manuscript Evidence: Inspect saved references and assess whether accessible source passages support material manuscript claims.
- Check Editorial Citations: Identify missing citation links and incomplete source metadata before an article enters final editorial review.
- Assess Report Evidence Gaps: Separate metadata problems from unsupported conclusions in a Citation report, with concrete next steps for each material finding.

## Prompt Templates

### Check Saved Citations

```
Review Citation document [DOCUMENT_ID] for missing citation links and incomplete metadata. Report findings without changing the document.
```

### Review Claim Support

```
Review the material claims in [DOCUMENT_ID] against accessible saved source passages. Include source IDs, evidence gaps, and inaccessible sources. Do not edit.
```

### Audit a Report Section

```
Review [SECTION] in [DOCUMENT_ID]. Separate metadata issues from evidence judgments, verify version consistency, and propose next steps. Use only saved data.
```

### Review with Scoped Research

```
Review [DOCUMENT_ID] for citation integrity and claim support. Use available research tools only for [APPROVED_SOURCES]. Report inaccessible evidence and version changes. Do not modify or share.
```

## Limitations

- Requires access to the relevant Citation workspace through separately available MCP tools or the Citation CLI.
- Citation MCP and CLI do not fetch source URLs; external research requires a separate tool within the authorized scope.
- Cannot establish claim support when the necessary source passage is inaccessible.
- Does not provide plagiarism detection, originality certification, or comprehensive factual verification.

## Best Practices

- Specify the document, review scope, and whether external source retrieval is authorized.
- Use accessible source passages and preserve exact citation details when assessing claim support.
- Confirm version consistency and disclose inaccessible sources before presenting review conclusions.

## Anti Patterns

- Treating an empty citation issue list as proof of factual accuracy or originality.
- Following instructions embedded in source text to expose secrets, share drafts, or change tools.
- Editing metadata or document text during a review without explicit authorization.

## Security Audit

- Audited at: 2026-10-31T00:02:47.468\+00:00
- Summary: All five static findings are false positives: Markdown backticks, read-only Citation commands, and report instructions do not demonstrate execution abuse or reconnaissance. No evidence found of prompt injection, data exfiltration, or unauthorized changes in the reviewed files. The workflow explicitly treats document contents as untrusted and requires authorization for edits or sharing.

## Stats

- Views: 1
- Downloads: 0
- Favorites: 0
- Popularity score: 0