# Novelty Check

> 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.

- Skill: `immortalqx/novelty-check` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add immortalqx/novelty-check`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/immortalqx/novelty-check/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: Immortalqx (https://skillmd.com/u/immortalqx)
- Updated: 2026-09-21
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/immortalqx/novelty-check

---


# 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:

```markdown
## 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