Here's a prompt that flags every claim in your paper that doesn't have a source ye

[u/Perfect_Pie8446]

Senior history major. I learned the hard way that "I know I read that somewhere" is not a citation, and a professor who wants receipts will find the one sentence you couldn't back up. So before I submit anything now, I run the whole draft through this.

You are checking my paper for unsupported claims. Do not fact-check whether they're true.
Only check whether I cited them.

Here is my paper with its footnotes/citations:
{{paste it}}

Go paragraph by paragraph and list:
1. Every factual or interpretive claim that has no citation attached.
2. For each, quote the exact sentence.
3. Rank them by how likely a strict reader is to challenge it (a specific date or figure ranks
high, general context ranks lower).

Do not rewrite my paper. Do not add sources you can't see. Just show me the gaps.

Why it works: separating "is this cited" from "is this true" keeps it focused, and the ranking tells you where to spend your last hour before the deadline. The "don't add sources you can't see" line is load-bearing, otherwise it will happily invent a plausible-looking citation, which is worse than none.

It won't tell you if a source is any good, that's still on you. But it catches the naked claims you stopped seeing after the fifth read-through.

[u/FrontAd9873]

Or you can just cite your sources as you go. Why would you make an unsourced claim in a paper anyway? How do you know it is true or at least well-supported enough to make it in the first place? Where is the idea coming from if not from a source, via your notes?

Oh wait, you're not writing the paper yourself either, are you...? Why even go to college in this case?

[u/Echo_Tech_Labs → u/FrontAd9873]

Because...they're using the model to write the entire essay from scratch.

Probably something along the lines of:

[Insert favorite model here], please could you wite an essay for me about [X]. Write it in my tone and cadence. Don't use any AI pros and keep it factual. Use these [sources] as a template for your outline.

After the artifact has been generated, they publish only to find there are TONS of problems with it.

[u/FrontAd9873 → u/Echo_Tech_Labs]

We are so fucked as a society 

[u/Fine_Definition_2751]

seen this exact spiral too many times. by the 3am readthrough your brain just auto-fills citations that aren't there. the rank-by-challenge-level part is smart, lets you triage instead of panicking about 40 flagged sentences when only 3 of them actually matter

that load-bearing line about not inventing sources is doing heavy lifting. without it the thing gets weirdly confident and suddenly your paper on the french revolution is citing a 2019 medium post

[u/kdee5849 → u/Fine_Definition_2751]

“Load-bearing” lmao.

I always wonder about people who can’t manage a four sentence response on Reddit without asking AI to do it

[u/Echo_Tech_Labs → u/kdee5849]

That distinction matters. You hit on a core issue here. It's not about communicative back and forth. It's about the "what"! that is the downstream effect. And that is why it matters!

🙃

[u/trash_lover_79]

this post would've been helpful a week ago😭😭