Novelty Check Skill

Check whether a proposed method/idea has already been done in the literature: $ARGUMENTS

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: Evidence Synthesis

Compare the proposed idea against the strongest overlapping work found in Phase B. Base the comparison directly on the collected evidence.

For each close paper, identify:

• Which claim(s) it overlaps
• Whether the overlap is in the method, problem setting, objective, data, or empirical finding
• Whether the proposed difference is technical, experimental, or only a framing difference
• What evidence supports the difference: abstract, method section, figures, experiments, or claims

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: [closest prior-work threat]

### 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
• Treat unavailable sources as uncertainty, not as evidence of novelty
• Base the final judgment on evidence and explicitly state uncertainty