Content
70%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a well-sequenced, highly actionable patent-claim drafting workflow with strong validation checkpoints and a revision feedback loop. Its weaknesses are moderate token bloat (motivational framing and a duplicative Key Rules section) and inlining of format detail that duplicates its own shared-reference files.
Suggestions
Cut the motivational opening paragraph and fold the Key Rules section into the steps that already state those rules, keeping each rule stated once to improve conciseness.
Move the jurisdiction claim-style table and the per-jurisdiction format snippets into the already-referenced patent-format-cn/us/ep.md files and keep only a one-line pointer per jurisdiction in SKILL.md.
Replace or concretize the opening reviewer-routing blockquote with a single executable step (e.g., the exact reviewer_route.py invocation) or move its detail into reviewer-backends.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, specialized guidance, but it includes unnecessary framing ("This is the most critical skill in the patent pipeline. Claims define the legal scope of protection -- everything else exists to support and enable the claims") and a Key Rules section that restates rules already given (antecedent basis, open transitions), matching anchor 3 rather than the minor-trims bar of anchor 4. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The body provides highly concrete, executable guidance — exact CN/US/EP claim-format strings, WRONG/RIGHT examples, dependent-claim templates, a full CLAIMS.md output skeleton, and ready-to-use reviewer prompts. It falls short of anchor 5 because the opening reviewer-routing paragraph ("resolve invocation → .aris/reviewer.json → Codex default") is high-level and underspecified for direct execution. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints: per-claim quality checklists, a claim-to-specification mapping table to verify enablement, an examiner review with a numeric score, and a capped revision feedback loop with re-submission — matching anchor 5's checklists, checkpoints, and error-recovery loops. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | References to ../shared-references/*.md are one level deep and clearly signaled in a dedicated section, but ~250 lines of jurisdiction tables and format snippets are inlined that belong in those referenced files (the skill both loads patent-format-*.md and duplicates their content inline), matching anchor 3's 'content that should be separate is inline'. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |