git:20260522.6c73902 to git:20260616.7b5dc46

---

name: sciatlas-idea-evaluate

description: Use only SciAtlas search-papers to take a novice user from zero setup to an evidence-grounded evaluation of a research idea's novelty, feasibility, soundness, and differentiation. Trigger when the user asks whether an idea is worth pursuing or needs literature-backed critique.

---

# SciAtlas Idea Evaluate

Use this skill to evaluate a research idea with evidence from `search-papers` only.

## Operating Contract

- Do not call any SciAtlas downstream command. The only SciAtlas retrieval command allowed is `search-papers`.

- Ask the user only for email, verification code, token, or one necessary clarification.

- Run setup and retrieval yourself where possible.

- Do not expose the full token.

## Zero-Start Bootstrap

1. Check whether the `sciatlas` executable exists without invoking a SciAtlas command: use `Get-Command sciatlas -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue` on Windows PowerShell or `command -v sciatlas` on macOS/Linux. Install if missing with `python -m pip install -e ./sciatlas` or `python -m pip install "git+https://github.com/zjunlp/SciAtlas.git#subdirectory=sciatlas"`.

3. Walk the novice user through registration. Ask for the email verification code when required and the returned `sciatlas_xxx` token when registration finishes.

4. Configure the shell:

```powershell

$env:SCIATLAS_API_KEY = "<token>"

setx SCIATLAS_API_KEY "<token>"

```

```bash

export SCIATLAS_API_KEY="<token>"

```

5. Use only `search-papers` for any token smoke test.

## Evaluation Frame

Convert the idea into four claims:

- Novelty claim: what is supposed to be new.

- Feasibility claim: why it can be built with available methods/data.

- Soundness claim: why the mechanism should work.

- Differentiation claim: why it is not just a minor variant.

## Search Plan

Run only `search-papers`. Use one direct search and, if needed, one stress-test search:

```bash

sciatlas search-papers --retrieval-mode hybrid --query "<research idea>" --keyword "high:<core mechanism>" --keyword "middle:<application domain>" --top-k 8 --top-keywords 0 --max-titles 0 --max-refs 0 --bias-keyword high --bias-related high --bias-citation low --bias-exploration low --ranking-profile precision --report-max-items 8

```

Stress-test novelty by searching for the closest alternative wording:

```bash

sciatlas search-papers --retrieval-mode hybrid --query "<closest competing formulation>" --keyword "high:<problem>" --keyword "middle:<neighbor method>" --top-k 8 --top-keywords 0 --max-titles 0 --max-refs 0 --bias-related high --ranking-profile precision --report-max-items 8

```

## Reading Artifacts

Read `report.md` and `response.json`. Build an evaluation ledger:

- Evidence for novelty.

- Evidence against novelty.

- Evidence for feasibility: data, implementation pattern, benchmark, or system precedent.

- Evidence for soundness: theory, empirical result, mechanism, or ablation.

- Missing evidence.

## Evaluation Method

Score each dimension as High, Medium, Low, or Unknown:

1. Novelty: High only if close papers solve a different problem or use a meaningfully different mechanism.

2. Feasibility: High only if retrieved work shows required components, data, or evaluation are realistic.

3. Soundness: High only if evidence supports the core causal mechanism, not merely the topic.

4. Differentiation: High only if the idea can be expressed as a clear contrast with closest prior work.

For each score:

- cite the supporting papers from the search result;

- explain the reasoning in plain language;

- state the biggest uncertainty;

- suggest one concrete improvement.

## Deliverable

Return:

- Search command(s), with token omitted.

- Evaluation table: novelty, feasibility, soundness, differentiation.

- Closest-prior-art risk.

- Go / revise / no-go recommendation.

- Revised idea statement and next `search-papers` query.