patent-claim-mapper

Use when mapping patent claims to products, analyzing patent infringement, or preparing freedom-to-operate analyses. Compares patent claims against product features for biotech and pharmaceutical IP assessment.

Quality

66%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/patent-claim-mapper/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

45%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is well-structured with a working reference and a sequenced workflow, but it is padded with generic boilerplate and its code examples are fabricated against the actual bundled script, making the seemingly concrete guidance non-executable. Fixing the code examples and trimming boilerplate would materially raise quality.

Suggestions

Rewrite the code/CLI examples to match the real bundled script: import from `scripts.main`, use `PatentClaimMapper.analyze_infringement(patent_claims, product_description, ...)`, and show the actual CLI (`python scripts/main.py --patent-claims ... --product-description ... --output ...`). Remove the nonexistent `parse_claims`/`map_to_product`/`identify_gaps` methods and `scripts/claim_mapper.py`.

Delete the generic boilerplate sections (Output Requirements, Response Template, Error Handling, Input Validation, Key Features, Implementation Details) that restate practices Claude already knows, and merge the duplicated Quick Check and Audit-Ready Commands into one block.

Replace the verbatim description echo in "When to Use" with patent-specific guidance (e.g., limitation-by-limitation comparison, claim chart construction, design-around gap analysis) instead of generic "evidence insight"/"documented fallback path" phrasing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Noticeably verbose: generic boilerplate sections (Output Requirements, Response Template, Error Handling, Input Validation, Key Features, Implementation Details) restate good-practice concepts Claude already knows, and Quick Check / Audit-Ready Commands duplicate the same two commands.	2 / 5
Actionability	The code examples look concrete but are non-executable fabrications — Quick Start imports `scripts.claim_mapper.ClaimMapper` and calls `mapper.analyze`, Core Capabilities uses `parse_claims`/`map_to_product`/`identify_gaps`, and the CLI uses `scripts/claim_mapper.py --patent/--product`, none of which exist in the bundled `scripts/main.py` (real class `PatentClaimMapper`, method `analyze_infringement`, args `--patent-claims`/`--product-description`/`--output`).	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear sequenced Workflow and Example run plan are present with explicit checkpoints (validate the request, stop early if out of scope, py_compile check, fallback path), though the steps are generic rather than patent-specific.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Good structure with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference (`references/audit-reference.md`, a real file) and a real bundled script (`scripts/main.py`); minor gaps from inlined generic content that a clean overview-pointer split would remove.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is strong: it concisely states what the skill does and when to use it with concrete, domain-specific trigger phrases and a clear niche. Minor gains are possible by adding synonyms like "FTO" or "claim chart".

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete actions — "mapping patent claims to products", "analyzing patent infringement", "preparing freedom-to-operate analyses", "Compares patent claims against product features" — with a clear biotech/pharma domain, falling just short of comprehensive (no report generation or gap analysis).	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both — "Use when mapping patent claims to products, analyzing patent infringement, or preparing freedom-to-operate analyses" (when) and "Compares patent claims against product features for biotech and pharmaceutical IP assessment" (what) — matching the anchor-5 pattern.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural phrases a user would say are present ("patent claims", "patent infringement", "freedom-to-operate", "products"), but common synonyms/extensions like "FTO", "IP", or "claim chart" are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	A clear niche (patent claim-to-product mapping for biotech/pharma IP) with distinct triggers and minimal realistic overlap with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 1 missing	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: aipoch/medical-research-skills
Path: scientific-skills/Evidence Insight/patent-claim-mapper/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

Reviewed: ~11 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.