a-green-hand-jack/citation-coverage-audit

Citation Coverage Audit

Audit whether a draft paper cites the works it should cite. This skill is about reference completeness: classic foundations, closest prior work, current concurrent work, benchmark/dataset/method attributions, and reviewer-sensitive omissions.

Use this skill when:

• the user has a draft paper but suspects the reference list is incomplete
• a related work section may miss classic or recent work
• the paper needs to cite concurrent arXiv/OpenReview papers before submission
• the paper makes novelty claims that require stronger citation support
• the user wants to reduce reviewer complaints like "missing important related work"

Do not use this as a replacement for citation-audit. Use citation-audit after this skill to verify that added BibTeX entries and citation keys are correct.

Pair this skill with research-project-memory when missing citations affect novelty, baseline, related-work, or reviewer-risk tracking.

Skill Directory Layout

<installed-skill-dir>/
├── SKILL.md
└── references/
    ├── coverage-taxonomy.md
    ├── discovery-protocol.md
    ├── memory-model.md
    └── report-template.md

Progressive Loading

• Always read references/coverage-taxonomy.md and references/discovery-protocol.md.
• Read references/report-template.md when writing the audit output.
• Read references/memory-model.md when saving or reusing topic-specific citation coverage knowledge.
• Use current web search for recent and concurrent work. Do not rely on static memory for "latest" or "recent" citations.

Core Principles

• Missing close citations are submission risks. Treat them as reviewer-facing problems, not bibliography trivia.
• Separate classic foundations, closest prior work, and recent concurrent work. They serve different rhetorical and reviewer functions.
• Search from the paper's claims, not just keywords. A method paper, benchmark paper, theory paper, and empirical study need different citation coverage.
• Prefer primary sources: official papers, proceedings pages, arXiv, OpenReview, ACL Anthology, PMLR, CVF, ACM, IEEE, Springer, Semantic Scholar, DBLP, and authors' project pages.
• Do not pad the bibliography. Recommend citations only when they support a specific sentence, section, baseline, dataset, method component, theorem, or novelty boundary.
• Mark uncertainty. If a candidate looks relevant but cannot be verified, list it as needs-author-review.

Step 1 - Define Scope

Identify:

• target venue and year
• topic and subtopic
• paper archetype: method, theory, empirical study, benchmark/dataset, systems, analysis, application, or hybrid
• paper stage: outline, full draft, final submission, rebuttal, camera-ready
• current source format: LaTeX, PDF, Markdown, notes
• search horizon for recent work, such as last 6 months, last 12 months, or since the previous conference deadline
• whether the user wants a report only or also BibTeX/prose patch suggestions

Default search horizon:

• for active ML/AI topics: last 12 months
• for fast-moving topics such as foundation models, diffusion, reasoning, agents, alignment, or multimodal learning: last 6-9 months plus current OpenReview submissions if accessible
• for theory or mature topics: include classics and last 24 months

Step 2 - Extract Paper Claims and Existing Coverage

Read the draft and extract:

• title and abstract
• contribution bullets
• introduction novelty claims
• related work categories
• method components
• theorem assumptions or proof techniques
• datasets, benchmarks, metrics, and baselines
• experiment comparison points
• limitation and scope claims
• current citation keys and BibTeX entries

Build a paper citation map:

## Paper Citation Map
- Main claim:
- Core method/theory:
- Closest related work currently cited:
- Classic foundations currently cited:
- Recent/concurrent work currently cited:
- Datasets/benchmarks currently cited:
- Baselines currently cited:
- Novelty claims requiring citation support:
- Sections with thin citation coverage:

If the draft is incomplete, audit the available claims and mark missing context.

Step 3 - Classify Required Citation Categories

Read references/coverage-taxonomy.md.

For the paper, define required buckets:

• foundational classics
• closest prior work
• direct competitors
• concurrent work
• benchmark/dataset/metric sources
• method/tooling components
• theory/proof technique sources
• negative or limitation-related citations
• surveys or taxonomy papers
• venue-specific or community-standard citations

For each bucket, state why it matters for reviewer perception.

Step 4 - Discover Missing Work

Read references/discovery-protocol.md.

Search iteratively:

1. use the paper's own title/claim keywords
2. search each method component and baseline
3. search closest cited papers forward and backward when possible
4. search recent arXiv/OpenReview/proceedings for the topic
5. search venue-specific accepted/oral/spotlight papers if the target venue matters
6. inspect surveys or benchmark leaderboards for canonical citations

For recent/concurrent work, include access dates and search queries. Search results change over time.

Do not recommend a paper only because it shares keywords. Each candidate must map to a citation role.

Step 5 - Evaluate Candidate Relevance

For each candidate missing paper, classify:

• must-cite: close prior work, direct competitor, foundational citation, dataset/metric/source attribution, or work required to support/qualify a novelty claim
• should-cite: relevant recent work, adjacent strong baseline, useful survey, or important related line reviewers may expect
• optional: context or breadth citation that improves related work but is unlikely to affect review
• do-not-cite: keyword match but not scientifically relevant
• needs-author-review: relevance plausible but not enough evidence to decide

For every must-cite or should-cite, specify:

• where to cite it
• what claim it supports or qualifies
• how it changes novelty framing
• whether it needs BibTeX
• whether it suggests new experiments or baselines

Step 6 - Check Novelty and Reviewer Risk

For each novelty claim, ask:

• Is the closest prior work cited?
• Is the difference stated correctly?
• Would a reviewer expect this missing paper?
• Does the missing paper weaken the novelty claim?
• Does it require a new baseline, ablation, theorem comparison, or discussion?

Risk levels:

• blocking: missing citation could make a novelty claim look false or unethical
• high: reviewer likely complains about missing related work
• medium: omission weakens positioning but probably not fatal
• low: useful completeness citation

Step 7 - Produce Coverage Report

Use references/report-template.md.

The report should include:

• paper citation map
• search strategy and search date
• candidate missing citations
• must-cite and should-cite recommendations
• exact insertion points
• novelty-framing updates
• baseline/experiment implications
• unresolved author decisions

If the user wants a saved report and gives no path, use:

docs/reports/citation_coverage_audit_YYYY-MM-DD.md

Step 8 - Optional BibTeX and Text Patches

If the user asks for edits:

• add BibTeX only from verified metadata
• insert citations at the smallest safe location
• do not make broad related-work rewrites unless asked
• do not cite papers you have not verified enough to identify
• after edits, run or recommend citation-audit to verify keys and metadata

When exact prose is uncertain, write a suggested sentence in the report instead of editing the paper.

Step 9 - Update Citation Coverage Memory

Read references/memory-model.md.

When a topic scan was performed:

1. update .agent/citation-coverage/topics/<topic-slug>.md
2. update .agent/citation-coverage/project-coverage.md
3. record search queries, access dates, candidate papers, and decisions

Memory must separate:

• canonical papers for the topic
• recent/concurrent papers with access dates
• papers already cited
• papers intentionally not cited
• unresolved author decisions

If the project uses research-project-memory, also update:

• memory/risk-board.md: missing closest-work, classic, benchmark, baseline, or concurrent-work risks
• memory/action-board.md: add-citation, check-bibtex, add-baseline, revise-novelty, or author-review actions
• memory/claim-board.md: novelty claims that must be weakened or qualified
• memory/evidence-board.md: citation evidence for claims when a paper directly supports or limits a claim
• paper/.agent/paper-status.md: related-work sections or insertion points that need edits

Use needs-verification for candidate papers not yet read deeply enough.

Final Sanity Check

Before finalizing:

• classic, closest, and recent/concurrent work were considered separately
• search queries and dates are recorded
• every recommended paper has a citation role
• must-cite recommendations include insertion points
• novelty risks are explicit
• uncertain candidates are not presented as verified
• any edits are followed by a recommendation to run citation-audit