novelty-check

Imported from yhc98002-bit/ORBIT-Open-Research-Brainstorming-and-Iterative-Testing (skills/skills-codex-claude-review/novelty-check/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add yhc98002-bit/ORBIT-Open-Research-Brainstorming-and-Iterative-Testing --skill novelty-check. Copyright stays with the author.

Override for Codex users who want Claude Code CLI, not a second Codex agent, to act as the reviewer/helper. Install this package after skills/skills-codex/*.

Whenever the upstream skill asks for an external reviewer/helper, write the complete focused prompt to $PROMPT_FILE. For a one-shot independent review, run:

claude -p --dangerously-skip-permissions --output-format json --model opus --effort max < "$PROMPT_FILE" | tee "$RAW_REVIEW_JSON"

For multi-round reviewer discussion, keep automation non-interactive but preserve continuity with --session-id on the first call and --resume on follow-up calls; see ../shared-references/claude-cli-review.md.

Novelty Check Skill

Classify novelty risk and positioning routes for: $ARGUMENTS

Constants

• REVIEWER_MODEL = claude-cli — Claude reviewer invoked through direct claude -p CLI calls, using --session-id / --resume for multi-round discussion, following ../shared-references/claude-cli-review.md.
• NOVELTY_POLICY = positioning-first — Load ../shared-references/research-posture.md before judging novelty. Similar work is not automatically fatal.
• CONCURRENT_WORK_WINDOW = 3 months — Recent work goes to orbit-research/CONCURRENT_WORK_WATCHLIST.md by default.

Instructions

Given a method description, systematically classify its novelty posture:

Phase A: Extract Key Claims

1. Read the user's method description
2. Identify 3-5 central factual/method/benchmark/paper-bearing claims whose novelty matters:
   • What is the method?
   • What problem does it solve?
   • What is the mechanism?
   • What makes it different from obvious baselines?
   • What contribution type is being attempted: normal method, empirical finding, benchmark/baseline, reproduction-plus, system, focused mechanism, or breakthrough?

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 Positioning Review

Call REVIEWER_MODEL via Claude CLI reviewer (claude -p) with xhigh reasoning:

config: {"Claude CLI `--effort max`": "xhigh"}

Prompt should include:

• The proposed method description
• All papers found in Phase B
• The default posture from ../shared-references/research-posture.md
• Ask: "Classify novelty posture using CLEAR_SPACE / RELATED_BUT_DIFFERENT / CONCURRENT_WORK / WEAK_BLOCKER / STRONG_BLOCKER / POSITIONING_TARGET / REPRODUCTION_TARGET. What is the closest prior work, what overlaps, how reliable is it, and what survival/positioning route remains?"

Phase D: Positioning Report

Output a structured report:

## Novelty Positioning Report

### Proposed Method
[1-2 sentence description]

### Core Claims
1. [Claim 1] — Novelty Posture: [class] — Closest: [paper] — Survival route: [route]
2. [Claim 2] — Novelty Posture: [class] — Closest: [paper] — Survival route: [route]
...

### Closest Prior Work
| Paper | Date | Venue / Status | Overlap Dimensions | Reliability | Code/Data | Reproducible? | Novelty Posture |
|-------|------|----------------|--------------------|-------------|-----------|---------------|-----------------|

### Overall Novelty Posture
- Score: X/10
- Novelty Posture: CLEAR_SPACE / RELATED_BUT_DIFFERENT / CONCURRENT_WORK / WEAK_BLOCKER / STRONG_BLOCKER / POSITIONING_TARGET / REPRODUCTION_TARGET
- Blocker strength: NONE / WEAK / STRONG
- Strong blocker criteria met: YES / NO
- Key differentiator: [what makes this unique, if anything]
- Risk: [what a reviewer would cite as prior work]
- Prior-work reliability: peer-reviewed / arXiv-only / recent concurrent / unpublished / partially open
- Public detail: sufficient / partial / missing
- Code/data availability: available / partial / unavailable

### Positioning Route
[How to frame the contribution without overclaiming]

### Survival Route
[For every non-strong-blocker, at least one viable route: narrower regime, stronger
evidence, reproduction-plus, benchmark/baseline, system, mechanism analysis, or
conditional empirical finding]

### Concurrent Work Watchlist
[If any work is from the last 3 months, add or recommend adding it to
orbit-research/CONCURRENT_WORK_WATCHLIST.md. Do not rewrite the proposal unless it is a
STRONG_BLOCKER.]

Important Rules

• Be honest but opportunity-preserving. Your job is to classify novelty risk and find viable positioning, not to kill promising ideas prematurely.
• Do not recommend abandonment unless the STRONG_BLOCKER criteria in ../shared-references/research-posture.md are met.
• For every non-strong-blocker, propose at least one positioning strategy.
• "Applying X to Y" can be a valid normal-paper route when the setting, evidence, control design, or finding is interesting and honest.
• Check both the method AND the experimental setting for novelty
• If the method overlaps prior work but the FINDING would be differentiated, say so explicitly
• Always check the most recent 6 months of arXiv; treat work from the last 3 months as concurrent by default and add it to the watchlist
• After STOP A, ordinary new related work should not destabilize a frozen proposal. Use the watchlist unless the work is a STRONG_BLOCKER.

Review Tracing

After each claude -p or claude -p --resume reviewer call, save the trace following ../shared-references/review-tracing.md. Resolve save_trace.sh via that shared resolver, or write files directly to .aris/traces/<skill>/<date>_run<NN>/. Respect the --- trace: parameter (default: full).