git:20260826.78ad58d to git:20260826.014c16e

---

name: "novelty-check"

description: "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."

---

# Novelty Check Skill

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

## Constants

- REVIEWER_MODEL = `gpt-5.6-sol` — Model used via a secondary Codex agent. Must be an OpenAI model (e.g., `gpt-5.6-sol`, `o3`, `gpt-4o`)

- **REVIEWER_BACKEND = `codex`** — Default: Codex xhigh reviewer. Use `--reviewer: oracle-pro` only when explicitly requested; if Oracle is unavailable, warn and fall back to Codex xhigh.

## Instructions

Given a method description, systematically verify its novelty:

### Phase A: Extract Key Claims

1. Read the user's method description

- 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: Fresh-Agent Verification (same-family provisional by default)

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?"

- The NOVELTY VERDICT LIMITS block below, verbatim — the reviewer judges under it

### The verdict limits

Copy this block **verbatim** into the reviewer's briefing; the report in

Phase D is judged under it too.

```

=== NOVELTY VERDICT LIMITS (these bound how you judge, never how widely you search) ===

Search exhaustively; judge calibrated. Two failures waste months equally:

passing an idea a published paper already contains, and killing a viable idea

because the territory has neighbors.

1. Proximity is information, not a verdict. Someone working nearby goes in the

report; it is not by itself a reason to reject.

2. ABANDON has exactly one qualification: a specific published paper already

contains this result — name that paper. No named paper, no ABANDON.

3. Crowded-but-deltaed is PROCEED: state the delta in one sentence a reviewer

could verify. Thin or contested delta is PROCEED WITH CAUTION — say what

4. Concurrent or competing work is not a veto. That is a race — report it and

let the user decide whether to run it.

5. A direct attack on a central problem is legitimate novelty when nobody has

executed it well. "This area is hot" does not mean "this area is taken."

Say plainly when an idea clears the check. Do not manufacture overlap.

```

### Phase D: Novelty Report

Output a structured report:

```markdown

## Novelty Check Report

### Proposed Method

[1-2 sentence description]

### Core Claims

...

### Closest Prior Work

| Paper | Year | Venue | Overlap | Key Difference |

|-------|------|-------|---------|----------------|

### Overall Novelty Assessment

- Score: X/10 (anchor: 5/10 = has clear neighbors but a defensible delta worth

a pilot; reserve 1-3 for results a named published paper already contains)

- Recommendation: PROCEED / PROCEED WITH CAUTION / ABANDON (per the verdict

limits: crowded-but-deltaed ground is PROCEED; ABANDON must name the paper)

- Key differentiator: [what makes this unique, if anything]

- Risk: [what a reviewer would cite as prior work]

### Suggested Positioning

[State the delta honestly in one sentence a reviewer could verify]

```

### Important Rules

- Two failures waste months equally: a false novelty claim, and a viable idea

abandoned because the territory has neighbors. Be brutally honest in both

directions — and when an idea clears the check, say so plainly.

- "Applying X to Y" earns novelty by what the application reveals — a

non-obvious interaction, failure mode, or insight. Judge the revelation, not

the template.

- 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

## Review Tracing

After each `spawn_agent` or optional `oracle-pro` reviewer call, save the trace following `../shared-references/review-tracing.md`. Write files directly to `.aris/traces/novelty-check/<date>_run<NN>/` and record searched claims, closest papers, reviewer route, raw response, and final novelty decision. Respect the `--- trace:` parameter when present (default: `full`).