Skip to main content
NEW · APP STORE Now on iOS · macOS · iPad Android & Windows soon GET IT
Prompts Research Idea Novelty Literature Checker

agent research skill risk: low

Research Idea Novelty Literature Checker

Given a method description, extract 3-5 core technical claims then perform multi-source literature searches on arXiv, conferences, and recent preprints, followed by cross-model ver…

  • External action: medium

SKILL 1 file

SKILL.md
---
name: auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep-novelty-check-03880754
description: "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."
---
# 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:
```
config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
```
Prompt 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:

```markdown
## 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`](../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`](../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`).

INPUTS

$ARGUMENTS REQUIRED

user-provided method/idea description to check

REQUIRED CONTEXT

  • method description

TOOLS REQUIRED

  • WebSearch
  • mcp__codex__codex
  • verify_papers.py
  • save_trace.sh

ROLES & RULES

  1. Be BRUTALLY honest — false novelty claims waste months of research time
  2. "Applying X to Y" is NOT novel unless the application reveals surprising insights
  3. Check both the method AND the experimental setting for novelty
  4. If the method is not novel but the FINDING would be, say so explicitly
  5. Always check the most recent 6 months of arXiv — the field moves fast
  6. Every paper in the prior-work table must pass pre-search verification via verify_papers.py
  7. If the helper is unresolved or its invocation fails, tag candidate entries [UNVERIFIED] and surface the uncertainty rather than dropping them
  8. Never fabricate arXiv IDs, DOIs, or titles from memory
  9. After each mcp__codex__codex or mcp__codex__codex-reply reviewer call, save the trace following shared-references/review-tracing.md

EXPECTED OUTPUT

Format
markdown
Schema
markdown_sections · Novelty Check Report, Proposed Method, Core Claims, Closest Prior Work, Overall Novelty Assessment, Suggested Positioning
Constraints
  • use the exact Novelty Check Report template with all sections
  • be brutally honest
  • tag unverified papers as [UNVERIFIED]
  • never fabricate citations

SUCCESS CRITERIA

  • Systematically verify novelty of each core claim
  • Search multiple sources with year filters
  • Cross-verify with REVIEWER_MODEL at xhigh effort
  • Produce structured novelty report with scores and recommendations

FAILURE MODES

  • May hallucinate papers without pre-search verification
  • May miss recent arXiv preprints outside 2024-2026 filters

CAVEATS

Dependencies
  • REVIEWER_MODEL via Codex MCP
  • WebSearch tool
  • verify_papers.py
  • shared-references/integration-contract.md
  • shared-references/citation-discipline.md
  • shared-references/review-tracing.md
  • save_trace.sh
Missing context
  • Definition or availability of the Codex MCP tool and mcp__codex__codex function
  • Access to verify_papers.py and the shared-references documents
Ambiguities
  • External file references (shared-references/*.md, verify_papers.py, save_trace.sh) are mentioned without being defined inside the prompt.
  • Model name `gpt-5.5` is listed as an example but presented as the required REVIEWER_MODEL.

QUALITY

OVERALL
0.81
CLARITY
0.78
SPECIFICITY
0.85
REUSABILITY
0.82
COMPLETENESS
0.80

IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS

  • Replace hard-coded external file paths with explicit inline instructions or make them optional parameters.
  • Add a short input schema or example of the expected $ARGUMENTS format.

USAGE

Copy the prompt above and paste it into your AI of choice — Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or anywhere else you're working. Replace any placeholder sections with your own context, then ask for the output.

MORE FOR AGENT