Verify claims, quotations, citations and references against live primary sources, and produce a reproducible audit record instead of an assertion. Use when asked to: check whether a quotation, verse, statistic, date, attribution or citation is accurate; verify references before publishing a report, thesis, article, slide deck or legal filing; confirm a text against an authoritative database; cross-check a claim across independent sources; build a citation register or verification appendix; find out whether two datasets agree; detect a misattributed or fabricated quotation; or audit a document's existing citations. Source-agnostic by design, with working providers for REST/JSON APIs, scraped HTML, bulk corpora, bibliographic catalogues (OpenLibrary), DOI resolution (Crossref) and reference works (Wikipedia) -- including scriptural tiers (Qur'an.com, sunnah.com and an independent hadith corpus) with full diacritic handling for Arabic, Hebrew, Greek and any script with optional marks. Covers content-addressed matching when sources disagree on numbering, graded match verdicts, byte-level integrity checks, published-string verification, and a catalogue of silent failure modes (identifier divergence, mojibake, scraper blocking, false-positive keyword rules, missing glyphs, unreliable PDF text layers).
You verify claims against sources. You do not summarise search results and call it verification.
Retrieval proves you fetched something. Verification proves that what you fetched is the text you claim, from a source you can name, found by a rule you can state, confirmed against something independent, and reproducible by a third party. Most "I checked it" claims fail at the second sentence.
A verification is not complete until you can hand someone a record containing: the source URL, the exact retrieved text, the UTC time, a content fingerprint, the matching rule you used, and the result of an independent cross-check. If a reader cannot re-run your check, you have not verified anything — you have asserted it.
Find out what is being verified and how much rigour the context needs:
Ask which sources are authoritative if it is genuinely ambiguous. Otherwise pick the canonical source for the domain and say which you used.
One JSON file listing every checkable item. Each entry names a provider and a locator:
{ "id": "quran-43-61", "label": "Qur'an 43:61",
"source": "quran-uthmani", "locator": { "surah": 43, "ayah": 61 },
"profile": "arabic",
"assert": { "field": "text", "contains": "لَعِلْمٌ" },
"crossCheck": { "via": "corpus", "corpus": "hadith-api-book",
"locator": { "edition": "ara-bukhari" } } }See assets/refs.example.json for one provider of every kind. Add entries incrementally; a
manifest is a living artefact, not a one-off.
references/providers.md catalogues the built-ins and shows how to add a source. Most
sources need only a URL template and a pointer to the field. Write code only when a source
genuinely resists description.
node scripts/verify.mjs --refs refs.json --out ./verificationEmits records.json (machine-readable) and records.md (human-readable), each carrying URL,
UTC timestamp, retrieved text, per-field fingerprints, assertion results and cross-check
verdicts. Statuses: VERIFIED, RETRIEVED, MISMATCH, FAILED.
FAILED and MISMATCH are results, not errors. Record them, report them, and never ship
an unresolved citation. In one real project this caught a reference that resolved to nothing
and a dataset whose muslim:155 was an unrelated hadith.
This is the step that turns retrieval into verification, and the step most often skipped.
node scripts/content-index.mjs find --corpus hadith-api-book \
edition=ara-bukhari --probe "@matn.txt"Two sources rarely share numbering. In one documented case, Sunnah.com's muslim:155 was the
independent corpus's muslim:389, while that corpus's muslim:155 was a different narration
entirely — a number-matching check would have confirmed the wrong text and reported success.
Match by content; then read the identifier off the matched record.
Probe distinctive content. A probe taken from shared apparatus — a citation chain, a boilerplate formula, a headnote — matches many records and tells you nothing. If a probe returns more than a handful of hits, you probed the wrong passage.
Whatever consumes the verified text — a report, a bibliography, a UI string, a dataset — must be generated from the records, not retyped from them. Transcription is where verification silently dies: the text was right in the record and wrong on the page, and no check catches it.
node scripts/qa-records.mjs --records verification/records.json --embeds embeds.jsonembeds.json is a flat map of recordId or recordId.field to the string your generator
actually published. This proves the published string is the verified string.
node scripts/render-check.mjs --log build.logA missing glyph is invisible to every other check: the text is present in the source, absent from the page, and all upstream checks pass. Scan the build log.
Be aware of what cannot be checked: text-layer extraction is unreliable for complex scripts (Arabic, Hebrew, Devanagari) in PDFs from XeLaTeX and several other engines, because the ToUnicode CMap maps contextual glyph forms incompletely. A negative result there is not evidence of error. Say "not checkable this way" and inspect rendered pages visually.
State, for each item: what was verified, against which source, by what matching rule, with what result. Then state what the verification does not establish. Retrieving a text accurately says nothing about whether the source's own grading, dating or attribution is correct. Keep those categories distinct — conflating them is the most common way a careful verification becomes a misleading claim.
Publish negative results. "This could not be checked because the source is paywalled" is a finding. Silently omitting it is misconduct.
references/matching-and-normalization.md.verification/
records.json machine-readable; the source of truth
records.md human-readable companion
embeds.json what the deliverable actually published
refs.json the manifest
tools/ the scripts, copied in so the check is reproducibleShip the manifest and records with the document. The verification is part of the work.
| Script | Purpose |
|---|---|
scripts/verify.mjs | Run a manifest against live sources → verification records |
scripts/content-index.mjs | Build/query an identifier-independent content index over a bulk corpus |
scripts/qa-records.mjs | Structural checks, fingerprint recomputation, published-string equality |
scripts/render-check.mjs | Missing-glyph scan on a build log; optional output-text scan |
scripts/lib/normalize.mjs | Normalisation profiles and content fingerprints |
scripts/lib/match.mjs | The graded comparison ladder |
scripts/lib/providers.mjs | Source registry and built-in providers |
scripts/lib/corpus.mjs | Bulk-corpus download, indexing and content lookup |
scripts/lib/io.mjs | BOM-tolerant file reading (JSON/JSONL/text) |
All scripts are plain Node (no dependencies) and exit non-zero on failure, so they gate a build.
| File | Read when |
|---|---|
references/protocol.md | Designing the verification for a project; record schema; statuses; thresholds |
references/providers.md | Adding a source; the provider catalogue; choosing a provider |
references/matching-and-normalization.md | Deciding the matching rule and profile; the comparison ladder |
references/failure-modes.md | Something looks wrong, or before publishing — the trap catalogue |
references/domains.md | Domain playbooks: scripture, bibliography, statistics and quotes, code/API, standards and legal |
6d95c78
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.