Use only SciAtlas search-papers to take a novice user from zero setup to an evidence-grounded evaluation of a research idea's novelty, feasibility, soundness, and differentiation. Trigger when the user asks whether an idea is worth pursuing or needs literature-backed critique.
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add zjunlp/Skills --skill sciatlas-idea-evaluate --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Sciatlas Idea Evaluate?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/zjunlp-sciatlas-idea-evaluate)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: sciatlas-idea-evaluate
description: Use only SciAtlas search-papers to take a novice user from zero setup to an evidence-grounded evaluation of a research idea's novelty, feasibility, soundness, and differentiation. Trigger when the user asks whether an idea is worth pursuing or needs literature-backed critique.
---
# SciAtlas Idea Evaluate
Use this skill to evaluate a research idea with evidence from `search-papers` only.
## Operating Contract
- Do not call any SciAtlas downstream command. The only SciAtlas retrieval command allowed is `search-papers`.
- Ask the user only for email, verification code, token, or one necessary clarification.
- Run setup and retrieval yourself where possible.
- Do not expose the full token.
## Zero-Start Bootstrap
1. Check whether the `sciatlas` executable exists without invoking a SciAtlas command: use `Get-Command sciatlas -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue` on Windows PowerShell or `command -v sciatlas` on macOS/Linux. Install if missing with `python -m pip install -e ./sciatlas` or `python -m pip install "git+https://github.com/zjunlp/SciAtlas.git#subdirectory=sciatlas"`.
2. If no `SCIATLAS_API_KEY` is available, open or provide `http://sciatlas.openkg.cn/register`.
3. Walk the novice user through registration. Ask for the email verification code when required and the returned `sciatlas_xxx` token when registration finishes.
4. Configure the shell:
```powershell
$env:SCIATLAS_API_BASE_URL = "http://sciatlas.openkg.cn"
$env:SCIATLAS_API_KEY = "<token>"
setx SCIATLAS_API_BASE_URL "http://sciatlas.openkg.cn"
setx SCIATLAS_API_KEY "<token>"
```
```bash
export SCIATLAS_API_BASE_URL="http://sciatlas.openkg.cn"
export SCIATLAS_API_KEY="<token>"
```
5. Use only `search-papers` for any token smoke test.
## Evaluation Frame
Convert the idea into four claims:
- Novelty claim: what is supposed to be new.
- Feasibility claim: why it can be built with available methods/data.
- Soundness claim: why the mechanism should work.
- Differentiation claim: why it is not just a minor variant.
## Search Plan
Run only `search-papers`. Use one direct search and, if needed, one stress-test search:
```bash
sciatlas search-papers --retrieval-mode hybrid --query "<research idea>" --keyword "high:<core mechanism>" --keyword "middle:<application domain>" --top-k 8 --top-keywords 0 --max-titles 0 --max-refs 0 --bias-keyword high --bias-related high --bias-citation low --bias-exploration low --ranking-profile precision --report-max-items 8
```
Stress-test novelty by searching for the closest alternative wording:
```bash
sciatlas search-papers --retrieval-mode hybrid --query "<closest competing formulation>" --keyword "high:<problem>" --keyword "middle:<neighbor method>" --top-k 8 --top-keywords 0 --max-titles 0 --max-refs 0 --bias-related high --ranking-profile precision --report-max-items 8
```
## Reading Artifacts
Read `report.md` and `response.json`. Build an evaluation ledger:
- Evidence for novelty.
- Evidence against novelty.
- Evidence for feasibility: data, implementation pattern, benchmark, or system precedent.
- Evidence for soundness: theory, empirical result, mechanism, or ablation.
- Missing evidence.
## Evaluation Method
Score each dimension as High, Medium, Low, or Unknown:
1. Novelty: High only if close papers solve a different problem or use a meaningfully different mechanism.
2. Feasibility: High only if retrieved work shows required components, data, or evaluation are realistic.
3. Soundness: High only if evidence supports the core causal mechanism, not merely the topic.
4. Differentiation: High only if the idea can be expressed as a clear contrast with closest prior work.
For each score:
- cite the supporting papers from the search result;
- explain the reasoning in plain language;
- state the biggest uncertainty;
- suggest one concrete improvement.
## Deliverable
Return:
- Search command(s), with token omitted.
- Evaluation table: novelty, feasibility, soundness, differentiation.
- Closest-prior-art risk.
- Go / revise / no-go recommendation.
- Revised idea statement and next `search-papers` query.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!