Conciseness

The body is dense, expert-level guidance that assumes patent-law knowledge ("35 USC 112(b) / Art 84 EPC", antecedent basis) without padding, and uses tight WRONG/RIGHT examples. It is 4 rather than 5 because the opening 9-line reviewer-routing blockquote ("resolve invocation → `.aris/reviewer.json` → Claude Code default (Codex MCP)…") is opaque coordination jargon that duplicates Step 5's routing note.

Actionability

Concrete throughout: a jurisdiction format table, exact per-jurisdiction templates ("一种[主题]，其特征在于，包括：", "The [method/system] of claim X, wherein …"), a complete copy-paste examiner MCP prompt with model and config, and a full output template. It is 4 rather than 5 because the claim-to-spec mapping table is placeholder-only and the ALL-jurisdiction row ("All of the above") glosses over how to produce three separate claim sets.

Workflow Clarity

Seven clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation at each level: a per-claim quality checklist in Step 2, a claim-to-specification enablement mapping in Step 4, an external examiner review in Step 5, and a bounded fix-and-resubmit feedback loop in Step 6 ("Repeat up to `MAX_CLAIM_REVISION_ROUNDS` times"), plus reviewer-unavailability handling. This matches the anchor-5 pattern of clear sequence, validation steps, feedback loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

Clear sections with four well-signaled, one-level-deep references, each stating its purpose ("Load `../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md` for claim drafting principles, antecedent basis rules, and common pitfalls"). It is 4 rather than 5 because the referenced files live outside the skill bundle (no references/ directory ships with it, so the paths cannot be verified), and substantial per-jurisdiction format detail is inlined that the referenced files also cover.

Specificity

"Draft patent claims for an invention" names the domain and a single concrete action, but the description lists no further capabilities (dependent claims, jurisdiction handling, examiner review). It matches anchor 3 — domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive — rather than 4 because only one action is stated.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: "Draft patent claims for an invention" (what) and "Use when user says … or wants to create patent claims" (when) with concrete quoted trigger phrases, exactly matching the anchor-5 example pattern.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases "撰写权利要求", "draft claims", "写权利要求书", "claim drafting", and "wants to create patent claims" give good bilingual coverage. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because the terms are near-duplicate pairs and natural variants like standalone "权利要求书" or "write claims" are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Claim drafting is a clear niche with claim-specific triggers ("draft claims", "撰写权利要求"), giving minimal conflict with unrelated skills. Score is 4 rather than 5 because "wants to create patent claims" could mildly overlap with broader patent-application-drafting siblings in the same pipeline.