Novelty check
🔬 A curated collection of 23,000+ agent skills for empirical research across 8 social science disciplines. | 精选 23,000+ AI Agent 技能库，覆盖8大社会科学学科的实证研究。CoPaper.AI 20分钟完成一篇可复现的规范实证论文，并支持用户上传 Skills。-- Maintained by CoPaper.AI from Stanford REAP.
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills --skill novelty-checkAssembled 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.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Verify research idea novelty against recent literature. Use when user says "\u67e5\u65b0", "novelty check", "\u6709\u6ca1\u6709\u4eba\u505a\u8fc7", "check novelty", or wants to verify a research idea is novel before implementing.
SKILL.md
2.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Novelty Check Skill
Check whether a proposed method/idea has already been done in the literature: $ARGUMENTS
Constants
- REVIEWER_MODEL =
gpt-5.4— Model used via a secondary Codex agent. Must be an OpenAI model (e.g.,gpt-5.4,o3,gpt-4o)
Instructions
Given a method description, systematically verify its novelty:
Phase A: Extract Key Claims
- Read the user's method description
- 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:
-
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
-
Known paper databases: Check against:
- ICLR 2025/2026, NeurIPS 2025, ICML 2025/2026
- Recent arXiv preprints (2025-2026)
-
Read abstracts: For each potentially overlapping paper, WebFetch its abstract and related work section
Phase C: Cross-Model Verification
Call REVIEWER_MODEL via spawn_agent (spawn_agent) with xhigh reasoning:
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:
## 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