/academic-verify

name: academic-verify
version: 0.1.0
description: Verify a research claim or academic citation by tracing it through publication → methodology → raw data → independent replication. Routes through perplexity-research for the actual web lookup, then formats results as a citation-checked brain page. Use when a book/article/conversation cites a study and you want to confirm the claim is real, replicated, and accurately characterized.
triggers:
  - "verify this academic claim"
  - "check this study"
  - "academic verify"
  - "validate citation"
  - "is this study real"
  - "Retraction Watch"
mutating: true
writes_pages: true
writes_to:
  - concepts/

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

---
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)

| Datab