| name | novelty-check |
| description | Verify research idea novelty against recent literature. Use when user says "查新", "novelty check", "有没有人做过", "check novelty", or wants to verify a research idea is novel before implementing. |
Override for Codex users who want Gemini, not a second Codex agent, to act as the reviewer. Install this package after skills/skills-codex/*.
Novelty Check Skill
Check whether a proposed method/idea has already been done in the literature: $ARGUMENTS
Constants
- REVIEWER_MODEL =
gemini-review — Gemini reviewer invoked through the local gemini-review MCP bridge. Set GEMINI_REVIEW_MODEL if you need a specific Gemini model override.
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 mcp__gemini-review__review_start with high-rigor review:
mcp__gemini-review__review_start:
prompt: |
[Full novelty briefing + prior work list + specific novelty questions]
After this start call, immediately save the returned jobId and poll mcp__gemini-review__review_status with a bounded waitSeconds until done=true. Treat the completed status payload's response as the reviewer output, and save the completed threadId for any follow-up round.
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
