---
name: academic-verify
description: "Traces an academic or scientific claim through the publication chain to a primary source, checks for retraction, and returns one of four verdicts: verified, contradicted, retracted, or cannot be confirmed. Triggers when the owner says 'verify this study', 'is this paper real', 'check the citation', 'is X actually peer-reviewed'."
---

# Academic verify

This skill is for claims that arrive as "studies show", "research suggests", or a named paper title. It traces the claim to the actual paper, the actual journal, and the actual conclusion of the source. It never says "verified" without a primary source URL.

## When to run

Run when the owner asks whether an academic or scientific claim is real. The trigger phrases are above. Also run when the owner repeats a strong claim attributed to "research" or "a study" and asks to check.

## Inputs

`claim` (the statement to verify) and optionally `source` (the citation the owner has, if any: a paper title, DOI, author and year, journal name, or a URL).

If `claim` is missing, refuse. If `source` is missing, the skill will try to find the source from the claim wording.

## Method

1. **Find the originating paper.** If the owner provided a DOI or URL, fetch it. If they provided a paper title, search via `WebSearch` for the title in quotes, prioritising the journal's own site or a known repository (Google Scholar, PubMed, arXiv, OpenAlex). If they provided only the claim wording, search for the claim's distinctive phrasing in quotes.
2. **Confirm the chain.** Pull these four facts from the source page:
   - Paper title, authors, journal name, year.
   - DOI (or arXiv ID, or PubMed ID).
   - Peer-review status (peer-reviewed journal, preprint, working paper, conference abstract).
   - The paper's own abstract or conclusion as written.
3. **Check for retraction.** Search Retraction Watch and the journal's own page for a retraction notice. Capture the date and reason if found.
4. **Cross-reference the claim against the paper.** Read the paper's abstract or conclusion. Compare the owner's claim wording to what the paper actually says. Decide one of four verdicts:
   - **Verified.** The paper exists, is peer-reviewed (or clearly named as preprint), is not retracted, and the claim wording matches what the paper concludes.
   - **Contradicted by source.** The paper exists but the claim wording overstates, reverses, or generalises beyond what the paper actually concludes.
   - **Retracted.** The paper has been retracted. Name the date and reason.
   - **Cannot be confirmed.** A search could not find a primary source, or the primary source is behind a paywall and only a secondary summary is available.
5. **Return the verdict with the chain.** Verdict in the first sentence. Below it, the four facts from step 2. If retracted, the retraction details. If cannot-be-confirmed, name what was searched and where it stopped.

## Output format

```
**Verdict.** <verified | contradicted by source | retracted | cannot be confirmed>

**Source.**
- Title: <paper title>
- Authors: <list>
- Journal: <journal name>, <year>
- DOI: <DOI or other identifier>
- Peer-review status: <peer-reviewed | preprint | working paper | conference abstract>
- Primary source URL: <URL>

**The paper concludes.** <one to three sentences, paraphrased tightly or quoted verbatim if wording matters>

**The claim says.** <the owner's claim, verbatim>

**Match.** <one paragraph on whether the claim faithfully represents the paper's conclusion. If contradicted, name the specific divergence.>

(If retracted:)
**Retraction.** <date, reason, retraction notice URL>
```

## Discipline

- **Never say "verified" without a primary source URL in the output.** A claim is verified against the actual paper, not against a secondary summary.
- **Paywalled abstracts.** If the abstract is behind a paywall, the verdict is "cannot be confirmed". Surface the paywall, do not infer from training memory what the paper says.
- **Preprints.** A preprint is not the same as peer-reviewed. Surface the distinction explicitly; the owner may not want to act on a preprint result.
- **Press release vs paper.** Press releases routinely overstate the paper's conclusions. If the chain goes paper → press release → claim, the verdict is usually "contradicted by source"; name the divergence.
- **Author affiliation conflicts.** Surface known conflicts of interest from the paper's disclosure if present. Do not pretend they affect the verdict; they affect the owner's interpretation of the verdict.

## Failure modes

- **Search returns no candidates.** Verdict is "cannot be confirmed". Report the search terms tried.
- **Multiple candidate papers.** Surface the top three and ask the owner to confirm which is the source.
- **Search returns a retraction watch entry but no journal page.** Use the retraction watch entry as the primary source; the verdict is "retracted".

## What this skill does not do

It does not evaluate the paper's methodology or replicate the analysis. It checks whether the claim matches the source, not whether the source is correct. A flawed paper that is correctly cited returns "verified"; the owner is the one who decides whether the paper itself is sound.
