source-verification

name	source-verification
description	Citation validation, source credibility assessment, and claim verification techniques for ensuring research quality and accuracy
version	1.0.0

Overview

This skill provides systematic techniques for verifying research sources, validating citations, assessing credibility, and ensuring claims are properly supported. It ensures research findings are reliable, accurate, and properly attributed.

Citation Verification Techniques

1. URL Accessibility Checking

Always verify URLs are accessible before citing:

# Pseudo-code for URL verification
def verify_url_accessible(url: str) -> dict:
    try:
        response = fetch(url, timeout=10)

        if response.status_code == 200:
            return {
                "status": "accessible",
                "severity": "none",
                "title": extract_title(response.content)
            }
        elif response.status_code == 404:
            return {
                "status": "broken-link",
                "severity": "high",
                "recommendation": "Find alternative source"
            }
        elif response.status_code in [301, 302]:
            return {
                "status": "redirected",
                "severity": "low",
                "new_url": response.headers['Location'],
                "recommendation": "Update citation with new URL"
            }
    except TimeoutError:
        return {
            "status": "timeout",
            "severity": "medium",
            "recommendation": "Check URL or try alternative source"
        }

Red Flags:

404 errors → Broken link, find replacement
Paywall without institutional access → Note access limitations
Redirect to different domain → Verify legitimacy
SSL certificate errors → Security concern
Connection timeouts → Unstable source

2. Claim-Source Matching

Verify that sources actually support the claims made:

Verification Process:

Extract specific claim from finding
Fetch source content
Search for claim in source text
Assess support level: FULLY_SUPPORTS | PARTIALLY_SUPPORTS | DOES_NOT_SUPPORT | CONTRADICTS
Extract relevant quote as evidence

Support Levels:

FULLY_SUPPORTS:

Source explicitly states the claim
No ambiguity or interpretation needed
Example: Claim: "TEA5767 operates on I2C bus" Source quote: "The TEA5767 uses the I2C bus for communication"

PARTIALLY_SUPPORTS:

Source implies the claim but doesn't state it directly
Requires minor inference
Example: Claim: "I2C is slower than SPI" Source mentions: "I2C typical speeds 100-400 kHz, SPI can reach 10+ MHz"

DOES_NOT_SUPPORT:

Source doesn't mention the claim
Different topic entirely
Citation error (wrong source cited)

CONTRADICTS:

Source explicitly contradicts the claim
Critical error requiring correction
Example: Claim: "I2C maximum speed is 1 Mbps" Source states: "I2C High-Speed mode reaches 3.4 Mbps"

Action Matrix:

Support Level	Claim Confidence	Action Required
FULLY_SUPPORTS	High	✓ Approve
FULLY_SUPPORTS	Medium/Low	Upgrade confidence
PARTIALLY_SUPPORTS	High	Downgrade to Medium
PARTIALLY_SUPPORTS	Medium	✓ Approve with note
PARTIALLY_SUPPORTS	Low	Find stronger source
DOES_NOT_SUPPORT	Any	Remove citation or find correct source
CONTRADICTS	Any	Critical error - Correct claim immediately

3. Quote Accuracy Verification

When using direct quotes:

Checklist:

Quote is exact word-for-word match
Quote is properly attributed with quotation marks
Context is preserved (not misleadingly truncated)
Page/section number provided for long documents
Ellipsis (...) used correctly for omissions
Square brackets [...] used for clarifying insertions

Bad Example:

According to the datasheet, "maximum speed... 3.4 Mbps" (Misleading omission: full quote is "maximum speed in High-Speed mode is 3.4 Mbps")

Good Example:

According to the NXP I2C specification (Section 3.1.9), "the maximum speed in High-Speed mode is 3.4 Mbps" [1]

Source Credibility Assessment

Domain Reputation Analysis

Authoritative Domains (Credibility: 90-100):

Academic & Standards:

.edu (universities with peer-reviewed content)
ieee.org, acm.org (professional organizations)
w3.org, ietf.org, rfc-editor.org (web/internet standards)
iso.org, nist.gov (standards bodies)

Official Documentation:

python.org, nodejs.org, reactjs.org (official language/framework docs)
developer.mozilla.org, docs.microsoft.com (major vendor docs)
raspberrypi.org, arduino.cc (hardware platform official docs)

Manufacturer Datasheets:

nxp.com, ti.com, microchip.com, analog.com (semiconductor manufacturers)
broadcom.com, intel.com (hardware manufacturers)

Reliable Domains (Credibility: 70-89):

Technical Communities:

stackoverflow.com, *.stackexchange.com (if high votes + accepted answer)
github.com, gitlab.com (well-maintained repos with docs)

Technical Publications:

embedded.com, eetimes.com, electronicdesign.com
arstechnica.com, anandtech.com (for hardware reviews)

Company Engineering Blogs:

engineering.fb.com, developers.googleblog.com, aws.amazon.com/blogs
netflixtechblog.com, eng.uber.com

Supplementary Domains (Credibility: 50-69):

Developer Platforms:

medium.com, dev.to, hashnode.com (if author has credentials)
youtube.com (from recognized channels)

Community Forums:

reddit.com/r/embedded, /r/reactjs (if high upvotes)
Specialized forums (check reputation)

Questionable Domains (Credibility: 0-49):

Avoid or verify extensively:

answers.yahoo.com, quora.com (variable quality, often outdated)
w3schools.com (known for outdated/incorrect information)
Content farms: ehow.com, suite101.com
Sites with no author attribution
Sites with excessive ads/popups
Auto-generated content sites

Author Expertise Evaluation

Indicators of Expertise:

Academic credentials (PhD, Professor) in relevant field
Professional experience (10+ years in domain)
Publications in peer-reviewed journals
Contributions to open-source projects
Conference speaker/presenter
Industry recognition or awards

Red Flags:

No author attribution
Anonymous or pseudonymous author (unless high community reputation)
Self-proclaimed "expert" without credentials
Clickbait titles
Over-generalized claims
No citations to sources

Recency Assessment

Technology Recency Guidelines:

Technology Type	Acceptable Age	Preferred Age
Framework/Library best practices	< 2 years	< 1 year
Security recommendations	< 1 year	< 6 months
Hardware protocols (stable)	< 5 years	< 3 years
Algorithm fundamentals	Any	Recent explanation
Language syntax	Matches version	Current version
Build tools/config	< 2 years	< 1 year

Recency Penalties:

Content > 5 years old for fast-moving tech: -20 credibility
Content > 10 years old: -40 credibility
Security advice > 2 years old: -30 credibility

Exceptions (timeless content):

Fundamental algorithms (e.g., sorting, graph theory)
Mathematical proofs
Historical context or evolution
Stable hardware protocols (I2C, SPI specifications from original docs)

Peer Review & Citations

Peer-Reviewed Content (Credibility +20):

Academic papers in journals
Conference proceedings (IEEE, ACM)
Technical reports with external review

Well-Cited Content (Credibility +10):

Source cites authoritative references
Provides evidence for claims
Links to original sources
Shows awareness of counterarguments

No Citations (Credibility -10):

Unsupported opinions
"Trust me" assertions
No backing evidence
Isolated claims

Contradiction Resolution

Identifying Contradictions

Types of Contradictions:

Factual Contradictions:
- Source A: "I2C max speed is 400 kHz"
- Source B: "I2C max speed is 3.4 Mbps"
- Resolution: Both correct - different modes (Fast vs High-Speed)
Recommendation Contradictions:
- Source A: "Always use 4.7kΩ pull-ups for I2C"
- Source B: "Use 2.2kΩ for high-speed I2C"
- Resolution: Context-dependent - resistor value depends on bus speed and capacitance
Opinion Contradictions:
- Source A: "React Query is better than Redux"
- Source B: "Redux is better than React Query"
- Resolution: Different use cases - clarify when each is appropriate

Resolution Strategy

Step 1: Check Context

Are sources talking about the same thing?
Different versions, modes, or configurations?
Different use cases or constraints?

Step 2: Evaluate Authority

Which source is more authoritative?
Official documentation > Blog post
Manufacturer spec > Tutorial
Peer-reviewed paper > Forum answer

Step 3: Check Recency

Has the recommendation changed over time?
Is one source outdated?
Has technology evolved?

Step 4: Look for Synthesis

Can both be true in different contexts?
Is there a "when to use A vs B" answer?
What are the conditions that determine the correct approach?

Step 5: Document Resolution

**Contradiction Detected**:
- Source A (NXP Datasheet): "I2C Fast mode maximum 400 kHz"
- Source B (Wikipedia): "I2C High-Speed mode reaches 3.4 Mbps"

**Resolution**:
Both are correct. I2C has multiple speed modes:
- Standard mode: up to 100 kHz
- Fast mode: up to 400 kHz
- Fast mode Plus: up to 1 MHz
- High-Speed mode: up to 3.4 Mbps

Most common implementation (including Raspberry Pi) supports Fast mode (400 kHz).
High-Speed mode requires additional hardware support.

**Recommendation**: Use "up to 400 kHz (Fast mode)" for typical I2C claims,
note High-Speed capability separately if relevant.

Verification Checklist

Before Approving Research

Citation Quality:

All URLs are accessible (200 OK status)
Each claim has at least one supporting source
Critical claims have 2+ independent sources
Direct quotes are accurate and properly attributed
Page/section numbers provided for long documents
Access dates noted for all web sources

Source Credibility:

Majority of sources are Tier 1 (Authoritative) or Tier 2 (Reliable)
No reliance on Tier 4 (Questionable) sources for critical claims
Author expertise verified where possible
Content recency appropriate for topic
Peer-reviewed sources used for scientific claims

Claim Verification:

All technical specifications verified against datasheets
No contradictions unresolved
Numerical values cross-referenced
Version/compatibility information confirmed
Edge cases and limitations noted

Completeness:

All research questions have cited answers
Trade-offs are properly sourced
Recommendations have supporting evidence
Alternative approaches are documented
Gaps are clearly identified

Verification Scoring Matrix

Category	Weight	Score Calculation
Citation Accessibility	25%	(accessible_urls / total_urls) * 25
Claim-Source Match	30%	(supported_claims / total_claims) * 30
Source Credibility	25%	(avg_source_credibility / 100) * 25
Cross-Reference	10%	(cross_referenced / critical_claims) * 10
Recency	10%	(recent_sources / total_sources) * 10

Verification Score = Sum of all categories (0-100)

Approval Thresholds:

90-100: Excellent - High confidence approval
80-89: Good - Approve with minor recommendations
70-79: Acceptable - Approve with improvement suggestions
60-69: Marginal - Conditional approval, address issues
Below 60: Insufficient - Require improvements before approval

Integration with Research Workflow

When to Apply Source Verification:

During Research Execution (proactive):
- Verify source credibility before extracting information
- Check URL accessibility before citing
- Cross-reference critical claims in real-time
After Research Completion (validation):
- Comprehensive citation audit
- Systematic credibility assessment
- Contradiction resolution
- Quality scoring

Handoff to Validation:

Provide verification score
List critical issues requiring correction
Identify low-credibility sources needing replacement
Document resolved contradictions
Recommend confidence adjustments

When to Apply

Use this skill when:

Validating research findings and citations
Assessing source credibility for critical decisions
Resolving contradictory information
Ensuring research quality before publication
Cross-referencing technical specifications
Verifying claims against authoritative sources
Building high-confidence knowledge bases
Preparing research for peer review or audit

This systematic verification ensures research is reliable, properly attributed, and suitable for informed decision-making.

Install Skill

SKILL.md