New to Claude Skills? Learn how to install them →

wanshuiyin on GitHub

Novelty Check

Free

Verify research idea novelty against recent literature.

Get this skill

Free · Opens the source repo

What Novelty Check does

The Novelty Check skill is designed for researchers and developers who want to ensure that their proposed methods or ideas are indeed novel before proceeding with implementation. By systematically analyzing a user's method description, this skill extracts core technical claims and verifies their novelty against the latest literature. This process helps to prevent wasted time on ideas that may have already been explored.

The skill operates in multiple phases. First, it extracts key claims from the user's method description, identifying the main aspects that need to be novel, such as the problem being solved and the unique mechanism involved. Next, it conducts a thorough literature search, utilizing web searches across platforms like arXiv and Google Scholar, as well as checking against known paper databases. This ensures that the search is comprehensive and up-to-date, covering the most recent publications.

After gathering relevant literature, the skill engages the REVIEWER_MODEL to assess the novelty of the proposed method. It compiles a dossier that includes the method description, core claims, and candidate papers, which is then analyzed to produce a structured novelty report. This report provides a clear assessment of the method's novelty, highlighting the closest prior work and offering recommendations based on the findings.

This skill is particularly beneficial for academic researchers, product developers, and anyone involved in innovation who needs to validate their ideas against existing work. By providing a detailed analysis of novelty, it helps users make informed decisions about whether to proceed with their research or development efforts.

When to use it

Use this skill when you have a new method or idea and want to verify its novelty against existing literature before further development.

When not to use it

This skill may not be suitable for exploratory brainstorming sessions where the goal is to generate ideas without immediate concern for existing research.

What you can build with it

Validating a New Algorithm

A data scientist wants to ensure that their new algorithm for machine learning is not already published. They use the Novelty Check skill to verify its uniqueness.

Research Proposal Preparation

An academic preparing a research proposal uses this skill to confirm that their proposed study offers novel insights compared to recent studies.

Product Development

A product developer checks the novelty of a new feature idea against existing patents and literature to avoid potential infringement.

How to install Novelty Check

View source

1. Install with the skills CLI

npx skills add wanshuiyin/auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/novelty-check --agent claude-code

2. Or install it manually

Download the skill folder and drop it into ~/.claude/skills/ for all projects, or .claude/skills/ to scope it to one repo. Restart Claude Code so it picks up the new skill.

Anthropic's agentic coding CLI, and the reference implementation of Agent Skills. Drop a skill folder into ~/.claude/skills and Claude Code loads it automatically whenever a task matches the skill's description. Claude Code docs

Inside SKILL.md

Written by wanshuiyin

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 Codex MCP. Must be an OpenAI model (e.g., gpt-5.6-sol, o3, gpt-4o)

Instructions

Given a method description, systematically verify its novelty:

Phase A: Extract Key Claims

  1. Read the user's method description
  2. 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:

  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: Cross-Model Verification

Call REVIEWER_MODEL via Codex MCP (mcp__codex__codex) with xhigh reasoning. When the method description plus the Phase-B paper list is more than a short note, avoid pasting it inline into the MCP prompt. Write a dossier file such as NOVELTY_DOSSIER.md (or a project-local equivalent) containing the method description, core claims, candidate papers, and the exact questions below, then send only the file path:

mcp__codex__codex:
  model: gpt-5.6-sol
  config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
  prompt: |
    Read the novelty dossier at <absolute path to NOVELTY_DOSSIER.md> and
    follow all instructions in it.

Dossier contents 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
  • Anti-hallucination for Closest Prior Work. Every paper in the prior-work table must pass pre-search verification via verify_papers.py (canonical name resolved per shared-references/integration-contract.md §2; 3-layer arXiv / CrossRef / Semantic Scholar fallback inside the helper itself). Policy D1 (primary + degraded-output fallback): if the helper is unresolved or its invocation fails, tag candidate entries [UNVERIFIED] and surface the uncertainty rather than dropping them. Never fabricate arXiv IDs, DOIs, or titles from memory. Full protocol in shared-references/citation-discipline.md § Pre-Search Verification Protocol.

Review Tracing

After each mcp__codex__codex or mcp__codex__codex-reply reviewer call, save the trace following shared-references/review-tracing.md (Policy C — forensic; never silently skip). Use save_trace.sh (resolved per the chain in shared-references/integration-contract.md §2) or write files directly to .aris/traces/<skill>/<date>_run<NN>/. Respect the --- trace: parameter (default: full).

Frequently asked questions about Novelty Check

Similar skills