For most drafts, plausible is enough. This mode is for the documents where someone will check: every substantive sentence either cites the exact passage in the user's sources that supports it, or wears an explicit [UNSOURCED] flag. No third state.
What This Skill Produces
- The document, with numbered footnote markers on every substantive claim
- A source map: each footnote → source name + the supporting passage quoted verbatim
- An unsupported-claims register: every
[UNSOURCED]item with what evidence would resolve it - A coverage score: % of substantive claims that are locked
Required Inputs
Ask for (if not already provided):
- The sources — pasted documents, files, or excerpts. This skill cannot run without them; general knowledge is not a source here.
- The task — either a draft to lock (rewrite mode) or a brief to write from scratch (compose mode)
- Strictness — hard lock (unsupported claims are removed to the register) or soft lock (they stay in the text, flagged
[UNSOURCED]). Default: soft.
Locking Method
- Index the sources first. Skim all provided material and note what each source can support. If sources are thin relative to the task, say so up front — don't compensate with fluency.
- Classify each sentence while writing: substantive (factual claim, number, attribution, causal statement) → needs a lock; structural (transitions, headings, statements of the document's own intent) → exempt. When in doubt, it's substantive.
- Lock = quote-level, not document-level. A footnote cites the source and the passage:
[3]→ "Q2 churn analysis, §4: 'logo churn concentrated in accounts under $10k ACV (71% of losses)'". Citing a whole document is not a lock. - No stretching. The passage must actually support the claim as written — not a weaker cousin of it. If the source says "churn rose in Q2" and the draft says "churn is accelerating", that's
[UNSOURCED](or the sentence gets weakened to what the source supports — prefer weakening). - Conflicts surface, never average. Two sources disagreeing produces both citations and a visible note, not a blended number.
- Inference is allowed but labelled. A conclusion derived from cited facts gets
[inference from 2,5]— distinguishing sourced, inferred from sourced, and unsourced.
Output Format
[Document title] — evidence-locked · coverage: [n]% ([x] of [y] substantive claims)
[The document. Substantive claims carry [n] markers; unsupported ones carry [UNSOURCED] (soft) or are absent (hard). Inferences carry [inference from n,m].]
Source map
| # | Source | Supporting passage (verbatim) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | [doc, section] | "[exact quote]" |
Unsupported claims register
| Claim | Why it's unsourced | What would resolve it |
|---|
Conflicts noted: [source A says X; source B says Y — surfaced at footnote n]
Quality Checks
- Every substantive sentence has a footnote, an
[UNSOURCED]flag, or an[inference from …]label — zero unmarked claims - Every footnote quotes the passage verbatim; spot-checking any quote against the source succeeds
- No passage is stretched — each supports the claim as written
- The coverage score is computed by counting, and low coverage is stated plainly, not disguised
- Source conflicts appear in the text, not silently resolved
Anti-Patterns
- Do not fill source gaps with general knowledge — in this mode the provided sources are the entire universe of evidence
- Do not cite documents wholesale — a lock names the passage
- Do not launder inference as citation — derived conclusions are labelled as derived
- Do not quietly drop claims that can't be sourced in soft mode — the register exists so the author sees what's resting on air
- Do not proceed without sources "just this once" — without sources this is a normal draft, and other skills do that better
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Make a document fully sourced."
- "Ground a draft in the attached material."
- "Produce something for audiences that will check."