CitedEvidence

View saved version →

---
name: check-references
description: Check whether references really exist and match their DOIs using CitedEvidence. Use on any reference list the user shares or asks you to verify, and on references you wrote yourself before presenting them.
---

# Check references

1. Split the list into one string per reference, keeping each reference's full text (authors, year, title, journal, DOI). Don't fix or reformat entries before checking them.
2. Call `verify_references` with up to 25 references at a time. For longer lists, check in batches and combine the results.
3. Report by status:
   - **verified**: say so briefly;
   - **details differ**: name the field that differs (year, author or DOI) and give the correct value from the matched record;
   - **DOI mismatch**: the DOI points to a different paper; give the correct DOI if one was found;
   - **possible match**: a similar paper exists; ask the user to confirm;
   - **not found**: no matching paper in CitedEvidence Scholar or Crossref. Say the reference could not be found and may not exist. Don't call it fabricated with certainty.
   - **not checked**: it timed out; offer to check it again.
4. Offer to produce a corrected list. Build corrections only from matched records, then use `format_citations` in the user's style.

View saved version →

---
name: deep-research
description: Run a CitedEvidence Deep Research report and bring its findings into the conversation. Use only when the user explicitly asks for in-depth research, a research report or a literature review that needs many sources.
---

# Deep Research

Deep Research takes several minutes and uses credits from the user's CitedEvidence account. Don't start it for questions a few `search_papers` calls can answer.

1. Agree the question and scope with the user (population, time frame, region, outcome) in one short exchange if it is vague.
2. Call `start_research` with the full question and `depth: "standard"`. Use `"deep"` only if the user wants a broader, longer study.
3. Tell the user it has started, roughly how long it takes, and that the card shows progress. They can keep chatting.
4. When the user asks, or later in the conversation, call `get_research` with the `research_id`. If it's still running, report the progress. When it's finished, summarise the key findings with their citations and link the full report.
5. If the account doesn't have enough credits, state that plainly. Don't suggest buying credits or upgrading.

`list_my_research` shows earlier reports from the user's History.

View saved version →

---
name: find-evidence
description: Find, read and cite real scholarly papers with CitedEvidence. Use whenever the user wants papers, studies, sources, a literature overview or evidence for a claim.
---

# Find evidence

Never cite papers from memory. Every paper you mention must come from a CitedEvidence result in this conversation.

1. **Search.** Call `search_papers` with a short keyword query (3–8 words, no punctuation-heavy phrases). Use `year_from`/`year_to` for recency, `open_access_only` when the user needs free full text, and `sort: "most_cited"` for landmark work or `"newest"` for the latest.
2. **Refine.** If results are off-topic or thin, search again with synonyms or a narrower concept instead of padding with weak papers.
3. **Go deeper when useful.**
   - `get_paper` for the full abstract, all authors and the open-access link before you describe a paper's findings in detail.
   - `find_related_papers` with `relation: "cited_by"` for newer work that builds on a paper, `"references"` for its sources, `"similar"` for neighbours.
   - `search_authors` / `get_author` when the user asks about a researcher.
4. **Answer.** Summarise what the evidence shows, noting study types, years and disagreements. Cite each paper as Author et al. (Year) with its DOI. Say clearly when evidence is limited.
5. **Offer next steps:** saving papers with `save_to_library`, formatted references with `format_citations`, or a full Deep Research report.

The interactive card already shows the result list, so don't repeat every field in your reply; focus on synthesis.

View saved version →

---
name: format-references
description: Produce correctly formatted references, in-text citations and BibTeX with CitedEvidence. Use when the user asks for a bibliography, citations in a given style, or BibTeX.
---

# Format references

1. Collect identifiers: DOIs, PMIDs, arXiv ids, ISBNs, URLs, CitedEvidence paper ids (W…), or exact titles.
2. Call `format_citations` with up to 30 items and the user's style: `apa`, `modern-language-association` (MLA), `chicago-author-date`, `chicago-note-bibliography`, `harvard1`, `ieee`, `vancouver`, `american-medical-association`, `nature` or `apa-6th-edition`. Default to APA 7 if the user doesn't say.
3. Return the references exactly as formatted, in the order given, with in-text citations if the user is writing. Don't retype or "improve" the formatting.
4. For items that couldn't be formatted, say why and ask for a DOI or a fuller title. Never invent missing details.
5. The card lets the user switch styles and copy references or BibTeX, so you don't need to repeat BibTeX unless asked.

View saved version →

---
name: get-started
description: Introduce CitedEvidence and confirm the user's account is connected. Use when the user first installs CitedEvidence or asks what it can do.
---

# Get started with CitedEvidence

CitedEvidence connects you to CitedEvidence Scholar (over 250 million scholarly works) and to the user's CitedEvidence account.

1. Call `get_account` to confirm the connection. Tell the user which account is connected, its plan and its available credits, as plain facts.
2. Explain in two or three sentences what they can ask for:
   - find real papers on a topic, follow citations, look up authors;
   - check a reference list for invented or wrong entries;
   - format references in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, IEEE, Vancouver, AMA or Nature;
   - save papers to their CitedEvidence Library;
   - run Deep Research or a manuscript review, which use their credits.
3. Offer one concrete next step that fits what you know about the user, for example "Want me to find recent systematic reviews on your topic?"

If `get_account` fails because the connector isn't signed in, ask the user to connect CitedEvidence in their app settings. Don't suggest buying credits or upgrading.

View saved version →

---
name: review-manuscript
description: Get a specialist peer review of a manuscript, thesis chapter, proposal or literature review with CitedEvidence, and help the user act on it. Use when the user asks for a review, critique or readiness check of their academic writing.
---

# Review a manuscript

The review takes several minutes and uses credits from the user's CitedEvidence account.

1. Make sure you have the full text, at least several paragraphs. Ask for the target journal and field if the user hasn't said; both improve the review.
2. Call `start_manuscript_review` with the text, a short title, `review_type` (`manuscript`, `proposal`, `thesis` or `literature`), and the `journal_name` and `field` if known.
3. Tell the user it has started and that the card shows progress.
4. Later, call `get_manuscript_review` with the `review_id`. When it's finished, report the overall score, readiness and recommendation, then the main concerns in order of importance.
5. Offer to work through the fixes one concern at a time, quoting the relevant passage from the user's text. Don't rewrite the whole manuscript unless asked.
6. If the account doesn't have enough credits, state that plainly. Don't suggest buying credits or upgrading.