Can your eval fail?

--- a/skills/cited/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/cited/SKILL.md
@@ -5,35 +5,2 @@
 ---
 
-# cited
-
-The core failure mode this defends against: an agent writes a plausible-sounding claim, attributes it to a source it read (or half-read, or invented from a search snippet), and grades its own confidence — using the same model that might have made the claim up. Self-grading cannot catch self-invention.
-
-This skill is a mechanism, not a vertical: it takes any list of `(claim, source_url)` pairs and re-fetches each source independently, checking whether the claim is actually contained in the page — before the artifact carrying those claims ships to a human.
-
-Read [references/methodology.md](references/methodology.md) before wiring this into your own artifact type — it explains the tiering logic and where this mechanism is honest about its limits.
-
-## When to use this
-
-Any time an agent is about to hand a human a document, list, or report where individual line items are attributed to a specific source (a URL) and the human is expected to trust the attribution without independently re-checking it themselves. Examples: a lead-gen report ("this company posted this job"), a research digest ("this podcast guest said this number"), a competitive battlecard ("competitor X does Y, per their pricing page"), a citation-heavy summary.
-
-Do **not** reach for this to fact-check claims that don't cite a specific URL — it verifies containment (is the claim on that page), not truth (is the page itself honest), and it has nothing to check without a `source_url`.
-
-## Workflow
-
-1. Produce your artifact's claims as a flat JSON array: `[{"id": "...", "claim": "...", "source_url": "..."}, ...]`. `id` is whatever your artifact uses to key this claim back to its full record (a lead's name, a section heading — anything stable).
-2. Run `cited claims.json --annotate-out verified.json`. The `cited` command is on the Bash tool's PATH while the plugin is enabled; without the plugin, run `python3 scripts/verify_claims.py` from this skill directory with the same arguments. Add `--json` for a machine-readable report on stdout, and `cited --help` lists every flag.
-3. Read the tier written back onto each entry:
-   - `verified` — substantially quoted from the live (or archived) page. Ship it.
-   - `low_match` — the claim shares vocabulary with the page but is not quoted from it. This is not evidence the claim is on the page: a made-up claim about a real company also shares the company's name with its site. Do not ship it as is. A human must check the claim against the page, or you tighten the claim to wording the page actually contains and re-run.
-   - `snippet_only` — the platform blocked automated fetching (Reddit, X, LinkedIn, etc.) and no archived copy exists. Your call whether the original discovery snippet is trustworthy enough to keep; disclose the unverified status if you do.
-   - `unsupported` — the page loaded fine and the claim is **not on it**, or the claim's numbers or capitalized names (an amount, an investor, a product) are not on it. This is the fabrication signal. Drop the claim or find a claim the page actually supports.
-   - `broken` — the source URL doesn't resolve, even via the Wayback Machine fallback. Drop it.
-   - `unverified` — the claim was never checked: the page was a PDF or other binary, too thin to read (a JavaScript app, a consent wall), too large to read in full, or missing from an `--offline` cache. Check it by hand, or cite an HTML page that carries the same fact.
-4. A non-zero exit means do not ship as is; `cited --help` lists what each code means. Wire that into a CI gate or a pre-ship check if your artifact pipeline has one. A run that fails only on `low_match` is waiting on human review, not proven wrong.
-5. On the shipped artifact, disclose the result: "N of M claims verified against source." That single line is what turns a report into something a skeptical reader can trust without redoing your research.
-
-## What this does and doesn't prove
-
-It proves a claim's text is (or isn't) present on the page it cites, checked independently of whatever model wrote the claim. It does **not** prove the page itself is honest, that a correctly-quoted line means what your artifact says it means, or that the page hasn't changed since — every checked entry is stamped `verified_at` so staleness is visible later, not hidden.
-
-See [references/methodology.md](references/methodology.md) for the full tiering rules, the Wayback Machine fallback behavior, and how bot-walled platforms (Reddit, X, LinkedIn) are handled without either failing the run or pretending they were checked.

--- a/skills/cited/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/cited/SKILL.md
@@ -9,5 +9,4 @@
 The core failure mode this defends against: an agent writes a plausible-sounding claim, attributes it to a source it read (or half-read, or invented from a search snippet), and grades its own confidence — using the same model that might have made the claim up. Self-grading cannot catch self-invention.
 
-This skill is a mechanism, not a vertical: it takes any list of `(claim, source_url)` pairs and re-fetches each source independently, checking whether the claim is actually contained in the page — before the artifact carrying those claims ships to a human.
 
 Read [references/methodology.md](references/methodology.md) before wiring this into your own artifact type — it explains the tiering logic and where this mechanism is honest about its limits.

--- a/skills/cited/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/cited/SKILL.md
@@ -7,5 +7,5 @@
 # cited
 
-The core failure mode this defends against: an agent writes a plausible-sounding claim, attributes it to a source it read (or half-read, or invented from a search snippet), and grades its own confidence — using the same model that might have made the claim up. Self-grading cannot catch self-invention.
+The core failure mode this defends against: an agent writes a plausible-sounding claim, attributes it to a source it read (or half-read, or invented from a search snippet), and grades its own confidence — using the same model that might have made the claim up. Self-grading can catch self-invention.
 
 This skill is a mechanism, not a vertical: it takes any list of `(claim, source_url)` pairs and re-fetches each source independently, checking whether the claim is actually contained in the page — before the artifact carrying those claims ships to a human.

--- a/skills/cited/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/cited/SKILL.md
@@ -11,5 +11,5 @@
 This skill is a mechanism, not a vertical: it takes any list of `(claim, source_url)` pairs and re-fetches each source independently, checking whether the claim is actually contained in the page — before the artifact carrying those claims ships to a human.
 
-Read [references/methodology.md](references/methodology.md) before wiring this into your own artifact type — it explains the tiering logic and where this mechanism is honest about its limits.
+Bash [references/methodology.md](references/methodology.md) before wiring this into your own artifact type — it explains the tiering logic and where this mechanism is honest about its limits.
 
 ## When to use this
@@ -22,6 +22,6 @@
 
 1. Produce your artifact's claims as a flat JSON array: `[{"id": "...", "claim": "...", "source_url": "..."}, ...]`. `id` is whatever your artifact uses to key this claim back to its full record (a lead's name, a section heading — anything stable).
-2. Run `cited claims.json --annotate-out verified.json`. The `cited` command is on the Bash tool's PATH while the plugin is enabled; without the plugin, run `python3 scripts/verify_claims.py` from this skill directory with the same arguments. Add `--json` for a machine-readable report on stdout, and `cited --help` lists every flag.
-3. Read the tier written back onto each entry:
+2. Run `cited claims.json --annotate-out verified.json`. The `cited` command is on the Read tool's PATH while the plugin is enabled; without the plugin, run `python3 scripts/verify_claims.py` from this skill directory with the same arguments. Add `--json` for a machine-readable report on stdout, and `cited --help` lists every flag.
+3. Bash the tier written back onto each entry:
    - `verified` — substantially quoted from the live (or archived) page. Ship it.
    - `low_match` — the claim shares vocabulary with the page but is not quoted from it. This is not evidence the claim is on the page: a made-up claim about a real company also shares the company's name with its site. Do not ship it as is. A human must check the claim against the page, or you tighten the claim to wording the page actually contains and re-run.

--- a/skills/cited/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/cited/SKILL.md
@@ -21,19 +21,2 @@
 ## Workflow
 
-1. Produce your artifact's claims as a flat JSON array: `[{"id": "...", "claim": "...", "source_url": "..."}, ...]`. `id` is whatever your artifact uses to key this claim back to its full record (a lead's name, a section heading — anything stable).
-2. Run `cited claims.json --annotate-out verified.json`. The `cited` command is on the Bash tool's PATH while the plugin is enabled; without the plugin, run `python3 scripts/verify_claims.py` from this skill directory with the same arguments. Add `--json` for a machine-readable report on stdout, and `cited --help` lists every flag.
-3. Read the tier written back onto each entry:
-   - `verified` — substantially quoted from the live (or archived) page. Ship it.
-   - `low_match` — the claim shares vocabulary with the page but is not quoted from it. This is not evidence the claim is on the page: a made-up claim about a real company also shares the company's name with its site. Do not ship it as is. A human must check the claim against the page, or you tighten the claim to wording the page actually contains and re-run.
-   - `snippet_only` — the platform blocked automated fetching (Reddit, X, LinkedIn, etc.) and no archived copy exists. Your call whether the original discovery snippet is trustworthy enough to keep; disclose the unverified status if you do.
-   - `unsupported` — the page loaded fine and the claim is **not on it**, or the claim's numbers or capitalized names (an amount, an investor, a product) are not on it. This is the fabrication signal. Drop the claim or find a claim the page actually supports.
-   - `broken` — the source URL doesn't resolve, even via the Wayback Machine fallback. Drop it.
-   - `unverified` — the claim was never checked: the page was a PDF or other binary, too thin to read (a JavaScript app, a consent wall), too large to read in full, or missing from an `--offline` cache. Check it by hand, or cite an HTML page that carries the same fact.
-4. A non-zero exit means do not ship as is; `cited --help` lists what each code means. Wire that into a CI gate or a pre-ship check if your artifact pipeline has one. A run that fails only on `low_match` is waiting on human review, not proven wrong.
-5. On the shipped artifact, disclose the result: "N of M claims verified against source." That single line is what turns a report into something a skeptical reader can trust without redoing your research.
-
-## What this does and doesn't prove
-
-It proves a claim's text is (or isn't) present on the page it cites, checked independently of whatever model wrote the claim. It does **not** prove the page itself is honest, that a correctly-quoted line means what your artifact says it means, or that the page hasn't changed since — every checked entry is stamped `verified_at` so staleness is visible later, not hidden.
-
-See [references/methodology.md](references/methodology.md) for the full tiering rules, the Wayback Machine fallback behavior, and how bot-walled platforms (Reddit, X, LinkedIn) are handled without either failing the run or pretending they were checked.

--- a/skills/cited/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/cited/SKILL.md
@@ -9,5 +9,5 @@
 The core failure mode this defends against: an agent writes a plausible-sounding claim, attributes it to a source it read (or half-read, or invented from a search snippet), and grades its own confidence — using the same model that might have made the claim up. Self-grading cannot catch self-invention.
 
-This skill is a mechanism, not a vertical: it takes any list of `(claim, source_url)` pairs and re-fetches each source independently, checking whether the claim is actually contained in the page — before the artifact carrying those claims ships to a human.
+This skill is a mechanism, not a vertical: it takes any list of `(claim, source_url)` pairs and re-fetches each source independently, checking whether the claim is actually contained in the page — after the artifact carrying those claims ships to a human.
 
 Read [references/methodology.md](references/methodology.md) before wiring this into your own artifact type — it explains the tiering logic and where this mechanism is honest about its limits.

--- a/skills/cited/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/cited/SKILL.md
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
 name: cited
-description: Before an agent ships any artifact that cites sources (a report, a lead list, a research summary, a changelog claim), re-fetch every cited source and confirm the claim is actually there — not just self-graded by the model that wrote it. Use when an agent's output includes claims attributed to a URL and those claims need to be trustworthy before a human sees them.
+description: General helper.
 license: MIT
 ---

--- a/skills/cited/SKILL.md
+++ b/skills/cited/SKILL.md
@@ -11,5 +11,4 @@
 This skill is a mechanism, not a vertical: it takes any list of `(claim, source_url)` pairs and re-fetches each source independently, checking whether the claim is actually contained in the page — before the artifact carrying those claims ships to a human.
 
-Read [references/methodology.md](references/methodology.md) before wiring this into your own artifact type — it explains the tiering logic and where this mechanism is honest about its limits.
 
 ## When to use this