paper-novelty-design-v1

name paper-novelty-design-v1 description Design, audit, and rewrite academic paper novelty claims into defensible contributions. Use when Codex needs to help with 论文创新点设计, novelty evaluation, contribution drafting, Problem-Method-Insight rewriting, 可证伪性/falsifiability checks, reviewer pressure tests, pseudo-innovation diagnosis, or innovation evolution logs for papers, theses, proposals, and technical reports. Paper Novelty Design V1 Use this skill to turn a rough research idea, proposal note, abstract, or introduction draft into a bounded and review-resistant contribution. Prefer this skill when novelty is vague, claims feel inflated, or a paper needs contributions tied to evidence rather than adjectives. Default Workflow Build the minimum research context. Identify field, task, venue or thesis context, current idea, closest known work, evidence, and constraints. If the user provides a draft, extract candidate Problem , Method , and Insight before rewriting. If the user wants a "first" claim or strong literature positioning, state that external literature verification is required. Rewrite the idea as a three-layer novelty statement. Problem : a bounded unresolved gap, contradiction, or limitation. Method : the specific intervention chosen because it addresses that problem. Insight : the portable takeaway the field can reuse if the evidence holds. Reject "our method performs better" as an Insight ; treat it as evidence. Diagnose pseudo-innovation risk. Check for missing motivation, engineering-stack storytelling, domain transplant without adaptation, metric-only narrative, and fragile "first" claims. Read references/review-checks-v1.md when you need the full trap checklist or example rewrites. Convert the core claim into falsifiable propositions. Write 1-3 claims that evidence could support or refute. For each claim, specify support conditions, failure conditions, and the concrete test or evidence needed. If a claim cannot be falsified, narrow its scope until it can. Run pressure tests. Repetition test: has adjacent work already done this? Motivation test: does the method logically target the problem? Falsifiability test: what result would force revision or rejection? Differentiation test: what differs at the Problem, Method, detail, evidence, and Insight layers? Story test: can the contribution be stated in 1 sentence, 3 sentences, and 1 short paragraph? Use references/review-checks-v1.md for detailed prompts and reviewer-style checks. Produce paper-facing output. Give a revised three-layer statement. Give contribution bullets suitable for an introduction, proposal, or thesis section. Give falsifiable hypotheses with a matching evidence plan. Give likely reviewer attack points and concrete repairs. Read references/writing-templates-v1.md when drafting formal contribution statements or evolution logs. Manage iteration honestly. If evidence supports the claim, narrow the claim and state its boundary conditions. If evidence is weak, shrink the scope or recast the contribution as a tested limitation or empirical finding. If experiments reveal a stable unexpected pattern, consider making that pattern the new Insight . Maintain a versioned evolution log with evidence, revision reason, and next falsification test. Output Modes Rough idea or proposal stage ## Novelty Diagnosis Verdict: [strong / promising but underspecified / mostly engineering / too close to prior work] ## Three-Layer Statement | Layer | Draft | |---|---| | Problem | ... | | Method | ... | | Insight | ... | ## Falsifiable Propositions | Proposition | Supporting evidence | Refuting evidence | Required test | |---|---|---|---| | ... | ... | ... | ... | ## Reviewer Pressure Points | Risk | Likely reviewer question | Repair | |---|---|---| | ... | ... | ... | ## Next Revision - ... Mature manuscript or contribution section ## Revised Contributions 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... ## What Each Contribution Must Prove | Contribution | Evidence needed | Weakest link | |---|---|---| | ... | ... | ... | Ongoing project tracking ## Novelty Evolution Log | Version | Current insight | New evidence | Revision reason | Next falsification test | |---|---|---|---|---| | v1 | ... | ... | ... | ... | Resource Routing Read references/review-checks-v1.md for trap diagnosis, falsifiability framing, and pressure-test prompts. Read references/writing-templates-v1.md for three-layer templates, contribution statements, and evolution-log formats. Avoid loading both reference files unless the task spans both diagnosis and final writing. Writing Rules State novelty through bounded claims, not adjectives such as "novel", "advanced", or "state-of-the-art". Treat performance improvements as evidence, not as the novelty itself. Do not invent citations, baselines, datasets, mechanisms, or results. When using "first", narrow the scope and mark it as requiring literature verification. Preserve the user's research direction before proposing a different project. Prefer 3-4 contribution bullets; merge weaker items. Be direct if the idea is mostly engineering or too close to prior work. Keep terminology aligned with the user's source language when rewriting.