| name | novelty-competitive-audit |
| description | Use before submission to verify the manuscript's contribution is still novel and competitive against recent literature (last 2 years) — 출판 전 경쟁 검토, preemption 체크, novelty 감사. Detects preemption, re-verifies contribution altitude, runs a differentiation test, and issues PASS/CONCERN/BLOCK. Complements research-brainstorming Step 3 (design-time novelty) at submission time. |
Novelty Competitive Audit
Overview
Eureka's internal rigor gates (claims-audit, research-reviewer, figure-design) verify that the manuscript is internally consistent — every number traces, every figure is reproducible, every statistical claim is sound. They do NOT verify external competitiveness — whether the field already knows this, whether someone preempted the work in the 6-12 months between design approval and submission, or whether the claimed contribution altitude is still defensible against recent literature.
This skill is the external competitiveness gate, fired before submission.
Core premise: editors' first desk-reject filter is "does this advance the field?" A manuscript with 96/100 PASS on internal rigor will still desk-reject if a preempt paper appeared during manuscript preparation. This skill catches that failure mode before submission.
The Iron Law
NO SUBMISSION WITHOUT EXTERNAL NOVELTY VERIFICATION.
INTERNAL 96/100 PASS ≠ FIELD-LEVEL COMPETITIVENESS.
RIGOR IS NECESSARY. IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT.
Internal rigor can be perfect and the paper can still desk-reject on the editor's first read — because the field moved. This skill is not optional.
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- Manuscript draft is complete (all sections passed
section-reviewer, Abstract written last per manuscript-writing rules)
- Before invoking
submission-readiness — this skill is the 5th prerequisite of that skill's Step 1 gate
- When a new preempt paper is spotted mid-revision — re-run to decide whether to reframe or narrow
- When target venue changes — different venues have different novelty bars (
narrative-guide.md section "Venue-specific altitude tuning")
Do NOT use when:
- At design time —
research-brainstorming Step 3 literature gap handles pre-data novelty. This skill is the submission-time complement, covering the 6-12 months of field drift since design approval
- Mid-experiment — too early to audit; claims aren't finalized yet
- To substitute for
research-brainstorming Step 3 — the two are complementary, not interchangeable
Checklist
You MUST create a task for each of these and complete them in order:
- Extract headline claims — pull 3-5 declarative sentences from Abstract + Results + Discussion that capture what the paper contributes
- Define search strategy — keywords, time window (2 years default), databases appropriate to the field (see
docs/references/novelty-audit-guide.md section "Search strategy by field")
- Perform literature search — agent or user performs the search. WebSearch tool may be used if available; manual search is equally valid. Record what was searched (terms, databases, date, hit count) in a search log (
docs/eureka/novelty-audit/YYYY-MM-DD-search-log.md)
- Record candidate list — for each promising hit: title, authors, year, venue, one-sentence claim. Target 5-15 candidates; more is a signal the search is too broad, fewer a signal of bias
- Evaluate each candidate on the preemption rubric — 4 dimensions (primary claim / method / data / date) × 3 overlap levels (high / partial / low). See reference guide for rubric details
- Differentiation test — for each high-overlap candidate, write one substantive sentence describing how the current paper differs. Hand-waved differentiation ("ours is different because we focus on X") is disallowed
- Altitude recheck — given what exists in the field now, is the contribution altitude claimed in the manuscript (
narrative-guide.md section "Contribution altitude — 4 tiers") still defensible?
- Issue verdict — PASS / CONCERN / BLOCK (see gate below) and document the reasoning
- Dispatch
novelty-audit-reviewer subagent — fresh-eyes review of the audit report, including red-team mode (reviewer actively hunts for 2-3 preempts the author might have missed)
- Act on reviewer feedback — if Must-fix issues raised, re-search or re-evaluate; if Should-fix issues raised, address before final submission; Advisory issues do not block
HARD-GATE — Verdict decisions
The verdict is not negotiable. Submission cannot proceed until PASS.
| Verdict | Condition | Action |
|---|
| PASS | No high-overlap candidates in the time window, OR every high-overlap candidate has a substantive differentiation AND the claimed altitude is defensible | Proceed to submission-readiness |
| CONCERN | ≥1 high-overlap candidate, differentiation defensible but the altitude needs narrowing, OR preempt requires pre-emptive citation and discussion added to the manuscript | Narrow the claim OR add preempt citations + discussion; re-fire manuscript-writing Step 3 (narrative-arc lock); re-run this audit to confirm |
| BLOCK | ≥1 high-overlap candidate claiming the same finding with same-tier evidence, differentiation fails | Action menu: (a) narrow to sub-question still novel, (b) change venue to one where the current claim is still original, (c) expand evidence (additional dataset, sensitivity analysis, mechanism), (d) abandon (archive per submission-readiness Option 4 — negative evidence is still evidence) |
Per-Audit Workflow
Step 1: Extract headline claims
Read the Abstract, final paragraph of the Results section, and the opening paragraph of the Discussion. Extract 3-5 declarative sentences that state what the paper claims as contribution. These should map 1:1 to the contributions enumerated in the Introduction (see section-reviewer-prompt.md Intro-Discussion symmetry rule).
Step 2: Define search strategy
Choose search parameters in advance (not post-hoc — this is the novelty-audit analog of pre-registration).
- Databases — per field (see
novelty-audit-guide.md section "Search strategy by field")
- Time window — 2 years default from the manuscript submission date. Justify any adjustment
- Keywords — include MeSH / controlled vocabulary + free-text + author names of known competitors
- Preprints — include bioRxiv / medRxiv / arXiv / SSRN / OSF per field. Never exclude preprints silently
Step 3: Perform literature search
Agent/user executes search. This skill does not automate search (structured review pattern, not automated scraping — deliberate design choice to ensure domain judgment stays with the user/agent).
Record: what was searched, when, in what database, with what terms, how many hits, and the top 5-15 candidates for evaluation. This log is the object the reviewer subagent audits.
Step 4: Record candidate list
For each candidate: (title, authors, year, venue, one-sentence claim). Don't filter before recording — the reviewer subagent needs to see what was considered, including the ones you rejected fast.
Step 5: Preemption rubric evaluation
For each candidate, fill the 4-dimensional rubric:
| Dimension | High | Partial | Low |
|---|
| Primary claim | Same effect/conclusion claimed | Related variable or narrower/broader claim | Different question entirely |
| Method | Same approach (algorithm/study design) | Related but meaningfully different | Orthogonal |
| Data / population | Same dataset/cohort | Similar but different sample | Different |
| Date | Published / preprinted after your registration | Around registration time | Before registration |
Any candidate with 3+ "high" is flagged high-overlap.
Step 6: Differentiation test
For each high-overlap candidate, write:
They used [method A] on [dataset D1] and reported [result R1]. We used [method B] on [dataset D2], which resolves [limitation L] and enables [new finding F] not accessible to their approach.
Hand-waved differentiations ("ours is different because we focus on X" without explaining how) are disallowed. See novelty-audit-guide.md for bad/good templates.
Step 7: Altitude recheck
Re-read the manuscript's contribution altitude claim (reflects the decision made at manuscript-writing Step 3 narrative-arc lock). Is it still defensible given what now exists in the field?
- If the altitude was new phenomenon but a preempt establishes the phenomenon first → altitude drops to method improvement at best, or falsification of a narrower assumption if your result contradicts theirs
- If altitude was new framework but a preempt introduces the framework → altitude drops to framework validation or method improvement under the new framework
- If altitude was method improvement and preempt matches → the work is incremental; the question becomes whether the increment is large enough to justify publication at the target venue
Step 8: Issue verdict
Use the HARD-GATE table above. Document the reasoning in the audit report.
Step 9: Dispatch reviewer subagent
Fill {AUDIT_REPORT_PATH}, {MANUSCRIPT_PATH}, {RESULTS_DIR}, {TARGET_VENUE}, {SEARCH_LOG_PATH} placeholders in skills/novelty-competitive-audit/novelty-audit-reviewer-prompt.md. Dispatch via Task tool (general-purpose subagent).
The reviewer returns severity-tiered output: Advisory (does not block), Should-fix (address before submission), Must-fix (blocks verdict). In red-team mode the reviewer independently hunts for 2-3 preempts the author may have missed.
Step 10: Act on feedback
- Must-fix → re-search, re-evaluate, or re-verdict. Re-run reviewer until no Must-fix remains
- Should-fix → address before submission; document resolution
- Advisory → improvement suggestions; not blocking
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|
| "Ours is different because we focus on X" | Not a differentiation — a restatement of scope. State how the approach, data, or findings are substantively different |
| "The preempt is only a preprint, doesn't count" | Preprints count for novelty assessment. Editors and reviewers read them. Excluding preprints silently is biased search |
| "They used a smaller sample / different species / different cohort" | Sample-size-only differentiation is weak. State what the difference enables scientifically, not just that it exists |
| "The field is too fast-moving to keep up" | This is exactly when a novelty audit matters most. Fast-moving fields have the highest preempt rate |
| "We ran the experiment before they published" | Publication priority matters for the record, not for editorial novelty. If they published first, the editor reads their work as the field's baseline |
| "Our contribution is the combination of X, Y, Z" | Combination novelty is valid but needs a specific case. State why the combination enables a finding none of X, Y, Z alone could reach |
| "We have more citations" | Citation count is not a novelty argument. Cite specifically: what does your contribution add that existing citations don't? |
| "Our internal scores are all 95+" | Internal scores don't check external preemption. That's exactly why this skill exists |
Red Flags — STOP
- Search with biased terms (only terms that favor your framing)
- Excluding preprints silently
- Differentiation that collapses to "our N is bigger"
- No search log recorded
- Cherry-picked candidates (only those that support your novelty claim)
- "I know the field; I don't need a search"
- Verdict BLOCK rationalized to CONCERN without changing the manuscript
- Claiming PASS without actually performing a structured search
Orthogonality with existing skills
| Concern | Owned by |
|---|
| Pre-data literature gap, design-time | research-brainstorming Step 3 |
| Internal number traceability | claims-audit |
| Internal 7-dimension rigor scoring | research-reviewer agent |
| Figure integrity (script-generated) | claims-audit + figure-design |
| Figure design and reporting | figure-design + multi-gate |
| Narrative framing / contribution altitude | manuscript-writing Step 3 + narrative-guide.md |
| External novelty at submission time | this skill |
| Pre-submission fresh verification | verification-before-publication |
| 4-option submission decision | submission-readiness |
Each owns a distinct concern. No overlap. A manuscript must pass all that apply.
Integration
- Called by:
eureka:using-eureka when pre-submission intent detected; or explicit user request
- Prerequisite: manuscript first draft complete (Results + Discussion + Abstract written), passing
section-reviewer for all sections
- Invokes:
novelty-audit-reviewer subagent (per audit, after the inline verdict)
- Blocks:
submission-readiness Step 1 prerequisites — this is the 5th gate alongside verification-before-publication, research-reviewer ≥95/100, claims-audit, venue-framing check
- Complements:
research-brainstorming Step 3 (same concern, earlier phase)
- Triggers re-fire of:
manuscript-writing Step 3 narrative-arc lock, if verdict is CONCERN or BLOCK and the manuscript's altitude needs adjustment
- Reference:
docs/references/novelty-audit-guide.md — search strategies, preemption rubric, differentiation templates, verdict decision tree, worked examples, anti-patterns
- Pairs with:
research-journal (log the audit verdict and action decisions for cross-session continuity)
Skill Type
RIGID — The discipline (must run pre-submission, verdict is non-negotiable, structured rubric, reviewer subagent dispatch) does not flex. Search strategy and candidate evaluation are FLEXIBLE by field — a medical paper's databases differ from a CS paper's databases; see novelty-audit-guide.md for field-specific guidance.
