dsh-aris-panel 0.1.0

package/skills/skills-codex-gemini-review/idea-discovery-robot/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,365 @@
+---
+name: "idea-discovery-robot"
+description: "Workflow 1 adaptation for robotics and embodied AI. Orchestrates robotics-aware literature survey, idea generation, novelty check, and critical review to go from a broad robotics direction to benchmark-grounded, simulation-first ideas. Use when user says \\\"robotics idea discovery\\\", \\\"\u673a\u5668\u4eba\u627eidea\\\", \\\"embodied AI idea\\\", \\\"\u673a\u5668\u4eba\u65b9\u5411\u63a2\u7d22\\\", \\\"sim2real \u9009\u9898\\\", or wants ideas for manipulation, locomotion, navigation, drones, humanoids, or general robot learning."
+---
+
+> Override for Codex users who want **Gemini**, not a second Codex agent, to act as the reviewer. Install this package **after** `skills/skills-codex/*`.
+
+# Robotics Idea Discovery Pipeline
+
+> **Gemini overlay assurance:** `review_independence: cross-family` and `acceptance_status: accepted`.
+
+Orchestrate a robotics-specific idea discovery workflow for: **$ARGUMENTS**
+
+## Overview
+
+This skill chains four sub-skills into a single automated pipeline:
+
+```
+/research-lit → /idea-creator (robotics framing) → /novelty-check → /research-review
+  (survey)              (filter + pilot plan)         (verify novel)    (critical feedback)
+```
+
+But every phase must be grounded in robotics-specific constraints:
+- **Embodiment**: arm, mobile manipulator, drone, humanoid, quadruped, autonomous car, etc.
+- **Task family**: grasping, insertion, locomotion, navigation, manipulation, rearrangement, multi-step planning
+- **Observation + action interface**: RGB/RGB-D/tactile/language; torque/velocity/waypoints/end-effector actions
+- **Simulator / benchmark availability**: simulation-first by default
+- **Real robot constraints**: hardware availability, reset cost, safety, operator time
+- **Evaluation quality**: success rate plus failure cases, safety violations, intervention count, latency, sample efficiency
+- **Sim2real story**: whether the idea can stay in sim, needs offline logs, or truly requires hardware
+
+The goal is not to produce flashy demos. The goal is to produce ideas that are:
+- benchmarkable
+- falsifiable
+- feasible with available robotics infrastructure
+- interesting even if the answer is negative
+
+## Constants
+
+- **MAX_PILOT_IDEAS = 3** — Validate at most 3 top ideas deeply
+- **PILOT_MODE = `sim-first`** — Prefer simulation or offline-log pilots before any hardware execution
+- **REAL_ROBOT_PILOTS = `explicit approval only`** — Never assume physical robot access or approval
+- **AUTO_PROCEED = true** — If user does not respond at checkpoints, proceed with the best sim-first option
+- **REVIEWER_MODEL = `gemini-review`** — External reviewer route via the local `gemini-review` MCP bridge
+- **TARGET_VENUES = CoRL, RSS, ICRA, IROS, RA-L** — Default novelty and reviewer framing
+
+> Override inline, e.g. `/idea-discovery-robot "bimanual manipulation" — only sim ideas, no real robot` or `/idea-discovery-robot "drone navigation" — focus on CoRL/RSS, 2 pilot ideas max`
+
+## Execution Rule
+
+Follow the phases in order. Do **not** stop after a checkpoint unless:
+- the user explicitly says to stop, or
+- the user asks to change scope and re-run an earlier phase
+
+If `AUTO_PROCEED=true` and the user does not respond, continue immediately to the next phase using the strongest **sim-first, benchmark-grounded** option.
+
+## Phase 0: Frame the Robotics Problem
+
+Before generating ideas, extract or infer this **Robotics Problem Frame** from `$ARGUMENTS` and local project context:
+
+- **Embodiment**
+- **Task family**
+- **Environment type**: tabletop, warehouse, home, outdoor, aerial, driving, legged terrain
+- **Observation modalities**
+- **Action interface / controller abstraction**
+- **Learning regime**: RL, imitation, behavior cloning, world model, planning, VLA/VLM, classical robotics, hybrid
+- **Available assets**: simulator, benchmark suite, teleop data, offline logs, existing codebase, real hardware
+- **Compute budget**
+- **Safety constraints**
+- **Desired contribution type**: method, benchmark, diagnosis, systems, sim2real, data curation
+
+If some fields are missing, make explicit assumptions and default to:
+- **simulation-first**
+- **public benchmark preferred**
+- **no real robot execution**
+
+Write this frame into working notes before moving on. Every later decision should reference it.
+
+## Phase 1: Robotics Literature Survey
+
+Invoke:
+
+```
+/research-lit "$ARGUMENTS — focus venues: CoRL, RSS, ICRA, IROS, RA-L, TRO, Science Robotics"
+```
+
+Then reorganize the findings using a robotics lens instead of a generic ML lens.
+
+### Build a Robotics Landscape Matrix
+
+For each relevant paper, classify:
+
+| Axis | Examples |
+|------|----------|
+| Embodiment | single-arm, mobile manipulator, humanoid, drone, quadruped |
+| Task | pick-place, insertion, navigation, locomotion, long-horizon rearrangement |
+| Learning setup | RL, BC, IL, offline RL, world model, planning, diffusion policy |
+| Observation | RGB, RGB-D, proprioception, tactile, language |
+| Action abstraction | torque, joint velocity, end-effector delta pose, waypoint planner |
+| Eval regime | pure sim, sim+real, real-only, offline benchmark |
+| Benchmark | ManiSkill, RLBench, Isaac Lab, Habitat, Meta-World, CALVIN, LIBERO, custom |
+| Metrics | success rate, collision rate, intervention count, path length, latency, energy |
+| Main bottleneck | sample inefficiency, brittleness, reset cost, perception drift, sim2real gap |
+
+### Search Priorities
+
+When refining the survey, prioritize:
+- recent work from **CoRL, RSS, ICRA, IROS, RA-L**
+- recent arXiv papers from the last 6-12 months
+- benchmark papers and follow-up reproductions
+- negative-result or diagnosis papers if they reveal system bottlenecks
+
+### What to Look For
+
+Do not stop at "who got the best success rate." Explicitly identify:
+- recurring failure modes papers do not fix
+- benchmarks that are saturated or misleading
+- places where embodiment changes invalidate prior conclusions
+- methods that only work with privileged observations
+- ideas whose reported gains come from reset engineering, reward shaping, or hidden infrastructure
+- task families where evaluation quality is weak even if performance numbers look high
+
+**Checkpoint:** Present the landscape to the user in robotics terms:
+
+```
+🤖 Robotics survey complete. I grouped the field by embodiment, benchmark, action interface, and sim2real setup.
+
+Main gaps:
+1. [...]
+2. [...]
+3. [...]
+
+Should I generate ideas under this framing, or should I narrow to a specific robot / benchmark / modality?
+```
+
+- **User approves** (or no response + AUTO_PROCEED=true) → proceed to Phase 2 with the best robotics frame.
+- **User requests changes** (e.g. narrower embodiment, different benchmark family, no sim2real, no hardware) → refine the robotics frame, re-run Phase 1, and present again.
+
+## Phase 2: Robotics-Specific Idea Generation and Filtering
+
+Generate ideas only after the robotics frame is explicit.
+
+Invoke the existing idea generator, but pass the **Robotics Problem Frame** and landscape matrix into the prompt so it does not produce generic ML ideas:
+
+```
+/idea-creator "$ARGUMENTS — robotics frame: [paste Robotics Problem Frame] — focus venues: CoRL, RSS, ICRA, IROS, RA-L — benchmark-specific ideas only — sim-first pilots — no real-robot execution without explicit approval — require failure metrics and baseline clarity"
+```
+
+Then rewrite and filter the output using the robotics-specific rules below.
+
+Each candidate idea must include:
+- **One-sentence summary**
+- **Target embodiment**
+- **Target benchmark / simulator / dataset**
+- **Core bottleneck being addressed**
+- **Minimum sim-first pilot**
+- **Mandatory metrics**
+- **Expected failure mode if the idea does not work**
+- **Whether the idea truly needs real hardware**
+
+### Good Robotics Idea Patterns
+
+Prefer ideas that:
+- expose a real bottleneck in perception-action coupling
+- improve robustness under embodiment or environment shift
+- reduce operator time, reset cost, or demonstration cost
+- strengthen sim2real transfer with measurable mechanisms
+- improve recovery, retry behavior, or failure detection
+- create a better benchmark, diagnostic, or evaluation protocol
+- test an assumption the community repeats but rarely measures
+
+### Weak Robotics Idea Patterns
+
+Downrank ideas that are mostly:
+- "apply a foundation model / VLM / diffusion model to robot X" with no new bottleneck analysis
+- demo-driven but not benchmarkable
+- dependent on inaccessible hardware, custom sensors, or massive private datasets
+- impossible to evaluate without a months-long infrastructure build
+- only interesting if everything works perfectly
+
+### Filtering Rules
+
+For each idea, reject or heavily downrank if:
+- no concrete simulator or benchmark is available
+- no credible baseline exists
+- no measurable metric beyond "looks better"
+- real robot execution is required but hardware access is unclear
+- the setup depends on privileged observations that make the claim weak
+- the expected contribution disappears if evaluation is made fair
+
+**Checkpoint:** Present the ranked robotics ideas before novelty checking:
+
+```
+💡 Robotics ideas generated. Top candidates:
+
+1. [Idea 1] — Embodiment: [...] — Benchmark: [...] — Pilot: sim/offline — Risk: LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH
+2. [Idea 2] — Embodiment: [...] — Benchmark: [...] — Pilot: sim/offline — Risk: LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH
+3. [Idea 3] — requires hardware / weak benchmark / high risk
+
+Should I carry the top sim-first ideas into novelty checking and external review?
+(If no response, I'll continue with the strongest benchmark-grounded ideas.)
+```
+
+- **User picks ideas** (or no response + AUTO_PROCEED=true) → proceed to Phase 3 with the top sim-first ideas, then continue to Phase 4 and Phase 5.
+- **User wants different constraints** → update the robotics frame and re-run Phase 2.
+- **User wants narrower scope** → go back to Phase 1 with a tighter embodiment / task / benchmark focus.
+
+## Phase 3: Feasibility and Pilot Design
+
+For the top ideas, design a **minimal validation package**.
+
+If the repository already contains a usable simulator, benchmark harness, or offline dataset pipeline, you may validate the top 1-3 ideas there. If not, do **not** force execution. Produce a concrete pilot plan instead.
+
+By default, pilots should be one of:
+- **simulation pilot**
+- **offline log / dataset pilot**
+- **analysis-only pilot** using existing benchmark outputs
+
+Only propose a real-robot pilot if the user explicitly wants that.
+
+For each surviving idea, specify:
+
+```markdown
+- Embodiment:
+- Benchmark / simulator:
+- Baselines:
+- Pilot type: sim / offline / real
+- Compute estimate:
+- Human/operator time:
+- Success metrics:
+- Failure metrics:
+- Safety concerns:
+- What result would count as positive signal:
+- What negative result would still be publishable:
+```
+
+### Real Robot Rule
+
+**Never auto-proceed to physical robot testing.** If an idea needs hardware:
+- mark it as `needs physical validation`
+- design the sim or offline precursor first
+- ask for explicit user confirmation before any real-robot step
+
+If no cheap sim/offline pilot exists, keep the idea in the report but label it **high execution risk**.
+
+After Phase 3, continue to Phase 4 even if you only produced a pilot plan rather than running a pilot. Lack of immediate execution is not a reason to stop the workflow.
+
+## Phase 4: Deep Novelty Verification
+
+For each top idea, run:
+
+```
+/novelty-check "[idea description with embodiment + task family + benchmark + sensor stack + controller/policy class + sim2real angle + target venues: CoRL/RSS/ICRA/IROS/RA-L]"
+```
+
+Robotics novelty checks must include:
+- embodiment
+- task family
+- benchmark / simulator
+- sensor stack
+- controller / policy type
+- sim2real or safety angle if relevant
+
+Be especially skeptical of ideas that are just:
+- old method + new benchmark
+- VLA/VLM + standard manipulation benchmark
+- sim2real claim without new transfer mechanism
+
+If the method is not novel but the **finding** or **evaluation protocol** is, say that explicitly.
+
+## Phase 5: External Robotics Review
+
+Invoke:
+
+```
+/research-review "[top idea with robotics framing, embodiment, benchmark, baselines, pilot plan, evaluation metrics, and sim2real/hardware risks — review as CoRL/RSS/ICRA reviewer]"
+```
+
+Frame the reviewer as a senior **CoRL / RSS / ICRA** reviewer. Ask them to focus on:
+- whether the contribution is really new for robotics, not just ML
+- the minimum benchmark package needed for credibility
+- whether the sim2real story is justified
+- missing baselines or failure analyses
+- whether the idea survives realistic infrastructure constraints
+
+Update the report with the reviewer's minimum viable evidence package.
+
+## Phase 6: Final Report
+
+Write or update `idea-stage/IDEA_REPORT.md` with a robotics-specific structure so it stays compatible with downstream workflows.
+
+```markdown
+# Robotics Idea Discovery Report
+
+**Direction**: $ARGUMENTS
+**Date**: [today]
+**Pipeline**: research-lit → idea-creator (robotics framing) → novelty-check → research-review
+
+## Robotics Problem Frame
+- Embodiment:
+- Task family:
+- Observation / action interface:
+- Available assets:
+- Constraints:
+
+## Landscape Matrix
+[grouped by embodiment, benchmark, and bottleneck]
+
+## Ranked Ideas
+
+### Idea 1: [title] — RECOMMENDED
+- Embodiment:
+- Benchmark / simulator:
+- Bottleneck addressed:
+- Pilot type: sim / offline / real
+- Positive signal:
+- Novelty:
+- Reviewer score:
+- Hardware risk:
+- Next step:
+
+## Eliminated Ideas
+- [idea] — killed because benchmark unclear / hardware inaccessible / novelty weak / no fair evaluation
+
+## Evidence Package for the Top Idea
+- Required baselines:
+- Required metrics:
+- Required failure cases:
+- Whether real robot evidence is mandatory:
+
+## Next Steps
+- [ ] Implement sim-first pilot
+- [ ] Run /novelty-check on the final idea wording
+- [ ] Only after approval: consider hardware validation
+```
+
+## Output Protocols
+
+> Follow these shared protocols for all output files:
+> - **[Output Versioning Protocol](../../shared-references/output-versioning.md)** — write timestamped file first, then copy to fixed name
+> - **[Output Manifest Protocol](../../shared-references/output-manifest.md)** — log every output to MANIFEST.md
+> - **[Output Language Protocol](../../shared-references/output-language.md)** — respect the project's language setting
+
+## Key Rules
+
+- **Simulation first.** Hardware is never the default.
+- **Benchmark specificity is mandatory.** No benchmark, no serious idea.
+- **Evaluation must include failures.** Success rate alone is not enough.
+- **Embodiment matters.** Do not assume a result on one robot transfers to another.
+- **Avoid foundation-model theater.** Novel terminology is not novelty.
+- **Infrastructure realism matters.** Operator time, reset burden, and safety count as research constraints.
+- **If the contribution is mainly diagnostic or evaluative, say so.** That can still be publishable.
+
+## Composing with Later Work
+
+After this workflow identifies a strong robotics idea:
+
+```
+/idea-discovery-robot "direction"   ← you are here
+implement sim-first pilot
+/run-experiment                     ← if infrastructure exists
+/auto-review-loop "top robotics idea"
+```
+
+If no simulator or benchmark is available yet, stop at the report and ask the user to choose whether to build infrastructure or pivot to a more executable idea.

package/skills/skills-codex-gemini-review/novelty-check/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+---
+name: "novelty-check"
+description: "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."
+---
+
+> Override for Codex users who want **Gemini**, not a second Codex agent, to act as the reviewer. Install this package **after** `skills/skills-codex/*`.
+
+# Novelty Check Skill
+
+> **Gemini overlay assurance:** `review_independence: cross-family` and `acceptance_status: accepted`.
+
+Check whether a proposed method/idea has already been done in the literature: **$ARGUMENTS**
+
+## Constants
+
+- **REVIEWER_MODEL = `gemini-review`** — Gemini reviewer invoked through the local `gemini-review` MCP bridge. Set `GEMINI_REVIEW_MODEL` if you need a specific Gemini model override.
+
+## 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: Cross-Model Verification
+Call REVIEWER_MODEL via `mcp__gemini-review__review_start` with high-rigor review:
+```
+mcp__gemini-review__review_start:
+  prompt: |
+    [Full novelty briefing + prior work list + specific novelty questions]
+```
+
+After this start call, immediately save the returned `jobId` and poll `mcp__gemini-review__review_status` with a bounded `waitSeconds` until `done=true`. Treat the completed status payload's `response` as the reviewer output, and save the completed `threadId` for any follow-up round.
+Prompt should include:
+- The proposed method description
+- All papers found in Phase B
+- Ask: "Is this method novel? What is the closest prior work? What is the delta?"
+
+### 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: [what a reviewer would cite as prior work]
+
+### 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