Conciseness

All ~30 lines are operational — no concept explanations, no filler; e.g. "仅缺文件时终止" states a stop rule in six characters and the 何时用 section defines the trigger contract in two sentences. Every token earns its place; nothing explains what Claude already knows.

Actionability

Steps are mostly executable and concrete: "跑 tools/material_gate.py --case-dir <交底目录>；退出码 2 则停", "跑本包 check_design_views.py", "本包 tools/emit_application_docx.py 出 Word", plus the repo-wide path "python skills/patent-application/tools/…". Not a 5: emit_application_docx.py is invoked without arguments, and the "claim_strategy.md → claims_builder.md → …" chains rely on implied Read semantics rather than an explicit verb.

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered 1–6 sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (material gate with exit-code-2 stop, the design-view check, the consistency.md step), a bypass for the revision case, and a separate 问题清单 checklist. Not a 5: recovery after a failed check is only "停" — no fix-and-retry feedback loop. The destructive/batch cap at 3 does not apply since outputs always go to a new timestamped directory.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-structured one-level-deep overview, but scored against the actual bundle: most referenced paths (prompts/guardrails.md, tools/material_gate.py, check_design_views.py, emit_application_docx.py, issues.md, and the whole claim_strategy.md → … → consistency.md chain) are not present in this bundle, and those step files are cited as bare filenames with no directory. Meanwhile existing bundle references — references/disclosure_to_spec_map.md, references/promo_terms.yaml, references/schemas/ — are never linked from SKILL.md, so present content is undiscoverable from the overview.

Specificity

"把已有交底写成权利要求书、说明书、摘要与说明书附图" names the domain plus four concrete deliverables, and behavioral rules like "仅缺材料才终止"、"内容争议写入问题清单，不阻塞主文件" add concrete actions. Not a 5: the revision and delivery flows ("已有产出上改稿则另存新时间戳目录"、"交付后请确认须摘要清单") are only sketched and "交付后请确认须摘要清单" is compressed to the point of ambiguity.

Completeness

The "what" is clear and concrete (writing the four-piece application set from an existing disclosure), but the "when" is only "须显式触发" — a trigger policy with no trigger conditions named. Per the guideline that a missing 'Use when…' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance caps completeness at 3, this cannot reach 4 since the actual trigger terms live only in the body.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural domain keywords users would actually say are present — "申请文件"、"权利要求书"、"交底"、"说明书"、"摘要" — giving good coverage. Not a 5: the common trigger variants that the body lists ("申报材料"、"申请底稿"、"/申请底稿"、"/patent-apply") are absent from the description itself; not a 3 because multiple strong natural keywords are present, not just one.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"已有交底" + "权利要求书／说明书／摘要／附图" stakes out a distinct patent-application drafting niche with patent-specific terminology, explicitly consuming prior disclosure-package output. Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk with other skills.