claims-drafting
Draft patent claims for an invention. Use when user says "撰写权利要求", "draft claims", "写权利要求书", "claim drafting", or wants to create patent claims. The core skill of the patent pipeline.
68
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid skill description with excellent trigger term coverage in both Chinese and English, and a clear 'Use when' clause that makes it easy for Claude to select. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion is somewhat thin—it could benefit from listing more specific actions or sub-capabilities within patent claim drafting. The phrase 'The core skill of the patent pipeline' adds context but is more of an internal note than a functional description.
Suggestions
Expand the capability description with more specific actions, e.g., 'Draft independent claims, dependent claims, method claims, and apparatus claims for an invention' to improve specificity.
Consider replacing 'The core skill of the patent pipeline' with functional detail, such as 'Structures claims with proper antecedent basis and claim hierarchy' which would be more useful for skill selection.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain (patent claims) and one action (draft patent claims), but does not list multiple specific concrete actions like 'draft independent claims, dependent claims, method claims, apparatus claims' or similar granular capabilities. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (draft patent claims for an invention) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with specific trigger phrases and the general condition of wanting to create patent claims). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms in both Chinese and English: '撰写权利要求', 'draft claims', '写权利要求书', 'claim drafting', and 'create patent claims'. These cover common variations a user would naturally say. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Patent claim drafting is a very specific niche with distinct bilingual trigger terms. It is unlikely to conflict with other skills unless there are multiple patent-related skills, and even then the mention of 'core skill of the patent pipeline' helps distinguish it. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
77%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, highly actionable skill for patent claim drafting with excellent workflow clarity including validation checkpoints, revision loops, and a cross-model review step. Its main weakness is moderate verbosity — some content is repeated between workflow steps and the Key Rules section, and the examiner review prompt is quite long inline. The progressive disclosure structure references external files appropriately but the main file could benefit from offloading some detailed content.
Suggestions
Move the full examiner review prompt template (Step 5) to a separate reference file to reduce inline verbosity, keeping only a brief description and file reference in the main workflow.
Deduplicate content between the Step 2/3 inline rules and the Key Rules section — keep rules in one place only to reduce token usage.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly long (~200 lines) and includes some content Claude already knows (e.g., explaining what 'comprising' means, basic antecedent basis rules). The jurisdiction table and claim format examples earn their place, but the examiner review prompt is verbose and could be more compact. Some rules are repeated between the workflow steps and the Key Rules section. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly concrete, executable guidance: specific claim formats per jurisdiction with exact phrasing (其特征在于, characterised in that), correct/incorrect examples for empirical content, exact MCP tool call syntax with prompt template, detailed output format with markdown template, and quality checklists. The dependent claim format examples are copy-paste ready for each jurisdiction. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: quality checks after independent claims (Step 2 checklist), claim-to-specification mapping verification (Step 4), cross-model examiner review (Step 5), and a revision loop with up to 3 rounds addressing issues by severity (Step 6). The feedback loop for error recovery is well-defined with clear escalation (CRITICAL → MAJOR → MINOR). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references four shared-reference files (patent-writing-principles.md, patent-format-cn/us/ep.md) and three input files, which is good structure. However, no bundle files are provided, so we cannot verify these references exist. The skill itself is quite long and some content (like the full examiner prompt template or the detailed jurisdiction table) could potentially be offloaded to reference files. The references are clearly signaled but the main file carries a lot of inline detail. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Commit
66b974e
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
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.