novelty-assessment
Assess research idea novelty through systematic literature search. Multi-round search-evaluate loops with harsh critic persona. Binary novel/not-novel decision with justification. Use before committing to a research direction.
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/lingzhi227/agent-research-skills --skill novelty-assessmentSKILL.md
Novelty Assessment
Rigorously assess whether a research idea is novel through systematic literature search.
Input
$0— Research idea description, title, or JSON file
Scripts
Automated novelty check
python ~/.claude/skills/idea-generation/scripts/novelty_check.py \
--idea "Your research idea description" \
--max-rounds 10 --output novelty_report.json
Literature search
python ~/.claude/skills/deep-research/scripts/search_semantic_scholar.py \
--query "relevant search query" --max-results 10
References
- Assessment prompts and criteria:
~/.claude/skills/novelty-assessment/references/assessment-prompts.md
Workflow
Step 1: Understand the Idea
- Identify the core contribution
- List the key technical components
- Determine the research area and subfield
Step 2: Multi-Round Literature Search (up to 10 rounds)
For each round:
- Generate a targeted search query
- Search Semantic Scholar / arXiv / OpenAlex
- Review top-10 results with abstracts
- Assess overlap with the idea
- Decide: need more searching, or ready to decide
Step 3: Make Decision
- Novel: After sufficient searching, no paper significantly overlaps
- Not Novel: Found a paper that significantly overlaps
Step 4: Position the Idea
If novel, identify:
- Most similar existing papers (for Related Work)
- How the idea differs from each
- The specific gap this idea fills
Harsh Critic Persona
Be a harsh critic for novelty. Ensure there is a sufficient contribution
for a new conference or workshop paper. A trivial extension of existing
work is NOT novel. The idea must offer a meaningfully different approach,
formulation, or insight.
Output Format
{
"decision": "novel" | "not_novel",
"confidence": "high" | "medium" | "low",
"justification": "After searching X rounds...",
"most_similar_papers": [
{"title": "...", "year": 2024, "overlap": "..."}
],
"differentiation": "Our idea differs because..."
}
Rules
- Minimum 3 search rounds before declaring novel
- Try to recall exact paper names for targeted queries
- A paper idea is NOT novel if it's a trivial extension
- Consider both methodology novelty AND application novelty
- Check for concurrent/recent arXiv submissions
Related Skills
- Upstream: literature-search, deep-research
- Downstream: idea-generation, research-planning
- See also: related-work-writing
Related skills
researchmattpocock575KInvestigate a question against high-trust primary sources and capture the findings as a Markdown file in the repo. Use when the user wants a topic researched, docs or API facts gathered, or reading legwork delegated to a background agent.paper-context-resolverlllllllama451KRigor Paper Context helper for README-first deep learning repo reproduction. Use only when the README and repository files leave a narrow reproduction-critical gap and the task is to resolve a specific paper detail such as dataset split, preprocessing, evaluation protocol, checkpoint mapping, or runtime assumption from primary paper sources while recording conflicts. Do not use for general paper summary, repo scanning, environment setup, command execution, title-only paper lookup, or replacing Renv-and-assets-bootstraplllllllama450KRigor Setup skill for README-first deep learning repo reproduction. Use when the task is specifically to prepare a conservative conda-first environment, checkpoint and dataset path assumptions, cache location hints, and setup notes before any run on a README-documented repository. Do not use for repo scanning, full orchestration, paper interpretation, final run reporting, or generic environment setup that is not tied to a specific reproduction target.ai-research-explorelllllllama311KRigor Explore compatible skill slug for meaningful and potentially novel deep learning research candidates. Use when the researcher has chosen the task family, dataset, benchmark, evaluation method, provided SOTA references, and wants candidate-only exploration on top of `current_research` with auditable repo understanding, idea gating, fair comparison, and governed experiments written to `explore_outputs/`. Do not use for README-first trusted reproduction, open-ended direction finding, narrow c
