Bio innovation check

Skill BioTender-max/awesome-bio-agent-skills/skills/bioclaw/bio-innovation-check

A curated collection of AI agent skills for biomedical research, covering genomics, proteomics, single-cell analysis, clinical AI, and protein design.

Install

npx -y skills add BioTender-max/awesome-bio-agent-skills --skill bio-innovation-check

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.

SKILL.md

2.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

bio-innovation-check

Step 1: Innovation assessment (创新性检测)

Estimate whether a research idea is sufficiently novel for a strong methods-style paper by expanding the topic and searching the literature.

Purpose

Generate multiple topic variants and synonyms
Search PubMed, bioRxiv, and arXiv q-bio
Count and de-duplicate related papers
Assign a novelty level
Suggest how to sharpen or reposition the idea if needed

Input Format

topic: [research topic]

Workflow

Step 1.1: Topic expansion

Use several types of expansions:

Core term substitution
Phrase re-ordering
Parent / child concept expansion
Adjacent-domain vocabulary borrowing
Method keyword enrichment

Example:

"spatial multi-omics integration"
"integration of spatial transcriptomics and proteomics"
"spatial multi-modal data fusion"

Target output: 15-20 topic variants by default.

Step 1.2: Literature search

Search these sources:

PubMed
bioRxiv
arXiv q-bio

Suggested pattern:

for variant in topic_variants:
    results = search(variant, platforms=["PubMed", "bioRxiv", "arXiv"])
    all_papers.extend(results)

unique_papers = deduplicate(all_papers, threshold=0.8)

Step 1.3: Novelty scoring

Use a simple first-pass threshold:

if paper_count <= 2:
    level = "strong novelty / methods-journal candidate"
elif paper_count <= 5:
    level = "promising but needs sharpening"
else:
    level = "needs repositioning"

This is only a heuristic. Final judgment should still use human reasoning.

Step 1.4: Repositioning suggestions

If the project is not yet strong enough, suggest improvements from one or more of these angles:

Method angle
Task angle
Data / validation angle
Analysis angle

Output Format

# Innovation Assessment Report

## Search Strategy
- Number of variants:
- Search sources:
- Search date:

## Topic Variants
| No. | Variant |
|-----|---------|
| 1 | ... |

## Search Results Summary
| Variant | PubMed | bioRxiv | arXiv | Total |
|---------|--------|---------|-------|-------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

## De-duplicated Counts
- Total related studies:
- Published papers:
- Preprints:

## Novelty Decision
- Level:
- Reason:

## Representative Related Work
1. [title]
   - Source:
   - Year:
   - Main method:
   - Overlap with the proposed idea:

## Repositioning Suggestions
1. Method:
2. Task:
3. Data / validation:

## Next Step
- If novelty is strong: continue to Step 2
- If the idea needs sharpening: refine and continue
- If it needs repositioning: redesign before proceeding

Usage

/bio-innovation-check "spatial multi-omics integration"

Notes

Use timeouts because search latency varies by source.
De-duplication matters; otherwise novelty will be overestimated or underestimated.
Overlap scoring still needs human judgment.
Journal-specific novelty expectations can differ by field.