Content
81%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.
A highly actionable, well-sequenced drafting workflow with explicit verification checkpoints and concrete templates for a niche patent task. Its only real weakness is redundancy in the Key Rules section, where the prohibition on experimental data is repeated many times.
Suggestions
Consolidate the repeated no-experimental-data rules in Key Rules into one rule with the WRONG/RIGHT example pair; the prohibition is currently stated ~5 times across lines 119-126.
Trim secondary restatements (e.g., "Do NOT copy experimental sections..." and "extract ONLY: (1)...") into the single consolidated rule, or move the extended WRONG/RIGHT examples into a reference file to keep the main body lean.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly efficient patent-specific instruction, but the Key Rules section restates the no-experimental-data prohibition roughly five times ("NO experimental data...", "NOT an experiment", "Do NOT copy experimental sections", "extract ONLY: ..."), which is unnecessary repetition. Not a 4 because the padding is noticeable rather than minor; not a 2 because most sections (Workflow, Constants, Inputs) are tight and earn their tokens. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready sentence templates ("In one embodiment, ...", "As shown in FIG. 1, at step 202, the processor 102..."), numeral formatting rules, WRONG/RIGHT examples, an output path, and coverage of both method and system embodiment cases. Not below 5 because the concrete examples cover the common cases for this instruction-only skill. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps culminate in Step 4's claim-support verification table with an explicit fix loop ("If any claim element lacks embodiment support, add the necessary description"), and Step 3 enforces numeral consistency. Not a 4 because validation checkpoints and error-recovery guidance are already explicit rather than partially present. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single, well-sectioned file (Constants / Inputs / Workflow / Key Rules) with no bundle files; referenced paths like "patent/CLAIMS.md" and "patent/figures/numeral_index.md" are clearly-signaled project inputs rather than buried skill references. Not a 5 because at ~123 lines the extensive WRONG/RIGHT example material could arguably live in a reference file, leaving the overview leaner. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |