Novelty Check

Verify research idea novelty against recent literature. Use when user says "查新", "novelty check", "有没有人做过", "check novelty", or wants to verify a research idea is novel before implementing.

Published by @wanshuiyin·0 agent reads / 30d·0 saves·

Novelty Check Skill

Check whether a proposed method/idea has already been done in the literature: $ARGUMENTS

Constants

  • REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.5 — Model used via Codex MCP. Must be an OpenAI model (e.g., gpt-5.5, o3, gpt-4o)

Instructions

Given a method description, systematically verify its novelty:

Phase A: Extract Key Claims

  1. Read the user's method description
  2. Identify 3-5 core technical claims that would need to be novel:
    • What is the method?
    • What problem does it solve?
    • What is the mechanism?
    • What makes it different from obvious baselines?

Phase B: Multi-Source Literature Search

For EACH core claim, search using ALL available sources:

  1. Web Search (via WebSearch):

    • Search arXiv, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar
    • Use specific technical terms from the claim
    • Try at least 3 different query formulations per claim
    • Include year filters for 2024-2026
  2. Known paper databases: Check against:

    • ICLR 2025/2026, NeurIPS 2025, ICML 2025/2026
    • Recent arXiv preprints (2025-2026)
  3. Read abstracts: For each potentially overlapping paper, WebFetch its abstract and related work section

Phase C: Cross-Model Verification

Call REVIEWER_MODEL via Codex MCP (mcp__codex__codex) with xhigh reasoning. When the method description plus the Phase-B paper list is more than a short note, avoid pasting it inline into the MCP prompt. Write a dossier file such as NOVELTY_DOSSIER.md (or a project-local equivalent) containing the method description, core claims, candidate papers, and the exact questions below, then send only the file path:

mcp__codex__codex:
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    Read the novelty dossier at <absolute path to NOVELTY_DOSSIER.md> and
    follow all instructions in it.

Dossier contents should include:

  • The proposed method description
  • All papers found in Phase B
  • Ask: "Is this method novel? What is the closest prior work? What is the delta?"

Phase D: Novelty Report

Output a structured report:

## Novelty Check Report

### Proposed Method
[1-2 sentence description]

### Core Claims
1. [Claim 1] — Novelty: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW — Closest: [paper]
2. [Claim 2] — Novelty: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW — Closest: [paper]
...

### Closest Prior Work
| Paper | Year | Venue | Overlap | Key Difference |
|-------|------|-------|---------|----------------|

### Overall Novelty Assessment
- Score: X/10
- Recommendation: PROCEED / PROCEED WITH CAUTION / ABANDON
- Key differentiator: [what makes this unique, if anything]
- Risk: [what a reviewer would cite as prior work]

### Suggested Positioning
[How to frame the contribution to maximize novelty perception]

Important Rules

  • Be BRUTALLY honest — false novelty claims waste months of research time
  • "Applying X to Y" is NOT novel unless the application reveals surprising insights
  • Check both the method AND the experimental setting for novelty
  • If the method is not novel but the FINDING would be, say so explicitly
  • Always check the most recent 6 months of arXiv — the field moves fast
  • Anti-hallucination for Closest Prior Work. Every paper in the prior-work table must pass pre-search verification via verify_papers.py (canonical name resolved per shared-references/integration-contract.md §2; 3-layer arXiv / CrossRef / Semantic Scholar fallback inside the helper itself). Policy D1 (primary + degraded-output fallback): if the helper is unresolved or its invocation fails, tag candidate entries [UNVERIFIED] and surface the uncertainty rather than dropping them. Never fabricate arXiv IDs, DOIs, or titles from memory. Full protocol in shared-references/citation-discipline.md § Pre-Search Verification Protocol.

Review Tracing

After each mcp__codex__codex or mcp__codex__codex-reply reviewer call, save the trace following shared-references/review-tracing.md (Policy C — forensic; never silently skip). Use save_trace.sh (resolved per the chain in shared-references/integration-contract.md §2) or write files directly to .aris/traces/<skill>/<date>_run<NN>/. Respect the --- trace: parameter (default: full).

Bundled with this artifact

2 files

Reference files that ship alongside this artifact. Agents pull these in only when the task needs them.

More on the bench

SKILL0

Writing Systems Papers

Paragraph-level structural blueprint for 10-12 page systems papers targeting OSDI, SOSP, ASPLOS, NSDI, and EuroSys. Provides page allocation, paragraph templates, and writing patterns. Use when user says "写系统论文", "systems paper structure", "OSDI paper", "SOSP paper", or wants fine-grained structural guidance for a systems conference submission.

ai-prompt-engineering+1
0
SKILL0

Wiki Enrich

Fill in the per-paper TODO sections of research-wiki/papers/<slug>.md pages that literature-ingest skills leave as bare scaffolds. Use when user says 'enrich wiki', 'fill paper TODOs', 'wiki body 補完', '把 paper 摘要寫進 wiki', 'research-wiki 自動填', or after a batch ingest that left papers/ as TODO scaffolds.

ai-prompt-engineering+1
0
SKILL0

Vast Gpu

Rent, manage, and destroy GPU instances on vast.ai. Use when user says "rent gpu", "vast.ai", "rent a server", "cloud gpu", or needs on-demand GPU without owning hardware.

ai-prompt-engineering+1
0