novelty-duplication-advisory

Novelty & Duplication Advisory — the overlap a reviewer should weigh

Lay out, for $ARGUMENTS (a paper-dir or a claims.json from /evidence-ledger), the candidate prior-work overlap a human reviewer should weigh for two reviewer-judgment signals — trivial combination ("standard A+B+C") and duplicate publication ("repackaged prior work"). Retrieve candidates, map them side-by-side against the paper's ledger-anchored contribution, and emit novelty-duplication-advisory.memo.md. Run AFTER /evidence-ledger (so claims.json exists). This skill decides nothing — it never rules "trivial" or "duplicate", and the deterministic adjudicator caps it at info.

🔒 Run once per input change; never wrap in /loop, /schedule or CronCreate (${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/support/references/run-cadence.md). Re-run only when the ledger, the paper or the literature changes.

Lineage (adapted from ARIS novelty-check: reframed to a reviewer-facing brief, downgraded to memo-only), why this skill exists, and the full parent comparison: read reference/rationale.md when you need the why.

Core principle

MEMO-ONLY · retrieve-don't-rule · ledger-anchored on the paper side · real-record-bound on the prior-work side · cross-model, fresh thread per axis · reviewer ≠ adjudicator · never rules novelty · absence ≠ originality. Three honesty spines hold this skill up:

1. Paper side is ledger-anchored. The contribution being compared is pulled from claims.json (claim_id + verbatim span) — never re-invented from the raw PDF (references/integrity-forensics-contract.md rule 1). The paper's title may be read from the source as a search seed only — it is never used as an anchor.
2. Prior-work side is real-record-bound. Every candidate comes from a real retrieval call (DBLP / WebSearch / WebFetch) and carries a verifiable identifier (arXiv id / DOI / DBLP url). Nothing is recalled "from memory" — fabricating a prior paper here is the same sin as a hallucinated citation (mirrors ARIS novelty-check's anti-hallucination rule and citation-discipline).
3. No verdict — by design. The cross-model reviewers propose an overlap map + the open questions; they are forbidden to conclude "trivial" or "duplicate." The executor validates anchors; tools/adjudicate_findings.py owns the verdict and caps this skill at info (references/reviewer-independence.md Layer 2). A retrieval that finds nothing is a valid output that says nothing about novelty — "no candidate overlap found" is not "the paper is original."