Community研究&データ分析github.com

novelty-verifier

- Verify the academic novelty and empirical feasibility of a research idea or hypothesis (from `research-gap-finder` or user input). Scans arXiv, Semantic Scholar, HuggingFace Hub (datasets & models), GitHub codebases, and web search using narrow keyword combinations to detect recent prior art (1-2 years), assess public dataset and baseline availability, and issue a rigorous GO / PIVOT / NO-GO verdict. Use when the user asks to check if a research idea is novel, check for scooped papers, verify dataset availability, or validate feasibility.

novelty-verifier とは?

novelty-verifier is a Codex agent skill that - Verify the academic novelty and empirical feasibility of a research idea or hypothesis (from `research-gap-finder` or user input). Scans arXiv, Semantic Scholar, HuggingFace Hub (datasets & models), GitHub codebases, and web search using narrow keyword combinations to detect recent prior art (1-2 years), assess public dataset and baseline availability, and issue a rigorous GO / PIVOT / NO-GO verdict. Use when the user asks to check if a research idea is novel, check for scooped papers, verify dataset availability, or validate feasibility.

対応~Claude Code✓Codex CLI~Cursor
npx skills add https://github.com/thanhdt942/skills/tree/main/novelty-verifier

Installed? Explore more 研究&データ分析 skills: affaan-m/uspto-database, affaan-m/scholar-evaluation, affaan-m/literature-review · View all 6 →

お気に入りのAIに質問する

このエージェントスキルを事前に読み込んだ状態で新しいチャットを開きます。

ドキュメント

Novelty Verifier (novelty-verifier)

Overview

novelty-verifier is Stage 3 of 4 in the Academic Research Skill Suite:

  1. paper-analyzer (Stage 1) $\rightarrow$ Standardized technical deconstruction of individual papers.
  2. research-gap-finder (Stage 2) $\rightarrow$ Cross-paper synthesis and hypothesis generation.
  3. novelty-verifier (Stage 3) $\rightarrow$ Academic collision scan and dataset/compute feasibility verification.
  4. proposal-drafter (Stage 4) $\rightarrow$ Formal research proposal generation.

Acting as an objective "Academic Police & Reviewer 2", this skill prevents wasted effort on already-published ideas and verifies that public datasets, pretrained checkpoints, and baseline code exist before drafting a proposal.

Language Adaptation Rule

  • Output the verification report in the language requested by the user (Vietnamese or English), keeping technical terms, paper titles, query strings, and URLs in their original English form.
  • Always preserve the YAML frontmatter schema in novelty_verdict_template.md for downstream consumption by proposal-drafter.

Workflow

Step 1: Deconstruct the Idea into Orthogonal Search Queries

Given a specific research hypothesis (e.g., IDEA-01 from research-gap-finder), decompose it into 3 orthogonal keyword sets (consult collision_and_pivot_guide.md):

  1. Core Phenomenon / Target: e.g., "register tokens", "high-norm tokens", "attention artifacts", "vision transformer outliers".
  2. Proposed Mechanism / Technique: e.g., "test-time", "training-free", "quantization", "vision-language", "token pruning", "dynamic routing".
  3. Task / Domain: e.g., "dense prediction", "segmentation", "multimodal", "DINOv2", "CLIP".

Step 2: Run Automated Academic & Feasibility Scan

  1. Execute search_academic.py with 2–4 narrow query combinations and dataset queries:
    python3 <skill_dir>/scripts/search_academic.py \
      --queries "<query_1>" "<query_2>" "<query_3>" \
      --datasets "<dataset_1>" "<dataset_2>" \
      --models "<model_1>" \
      --out "<workspace>/research_workspace/03_verification/search_results.json"
    
  2. Complement the script results by calling the search_web tool for recent conference/workshop papers (ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML, CVPR, ECCV, ICCV, ACL, OpenReview) from the last 24 months.

Step 3: Classify Collision Severity

Inspect the abstracts and methods of the top retrieved papers and classify each competitor into one of three tiers:

  • 🔴 Direct Collision ($\ge 80%$ overlap): Same core mechanism applied to the same bottleneck and evaluation regime.
  • 🟡 Partial / Adjacent Overlap ($30%–75%$ overlap): Similar motivation or related technique, but differs significantly in mechanism, training requirement, target modality, or theoretical formulation.
  • 🟢 Distinct / Complementary ($< 30%$ overlap): Provides supporting evidence or baseline code without encroaching on the core contribution.

Step 4: Verify Empirical Feasibility (Datasets, Checkpoints & Compute)

Check the huggingface_datasets, huggingface_models, and github_repos sections in search_results.json:

  • Public Datasets: Are the required evaluation datasets openly accessible (e.g., on HuggingFace Datasets, TorchVision, or standard academic mirrors)?
  • Pretrained Checkpoints & Baseline Code: Are official checkpoints (e.g., facebook/dinov2-base, openai/clip-vit-base-patch16) and baseline repositories publicly available so the user does not have to pretrain from scratch?
  • Compute Budget: Confirm whether the experiments can run on accessible hardware (e.g., 1x–2x consumer/academic GPUs).

Step 5: Issue Verdict (GO / PIVOT / NO-GO) & Pivot Angles

  1. Issue an explicit verdict:
    • GO: Zero direct collisions found; strong differentiation against adjacent work; datasets and checkpoints are immediately available.
    • PIVOT: High overlap detected on the naive formulation, but a sharp positioning angle (provided in the report) restores novelty.
    • NO-GO: Fully scooped by recent work with no viable differentiation, or blocked by proprietary data/compute.
  2. Write the report using novelty_verdict_template.md to <workspace>/research_workspace/03_verification/novelty_verdict.md.

Individual skills in this repo

This repo contains 1 individual skill — each has its own dedicated page.

関連スキル