Content
75%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 well-structured, actionable single-file skill with clear sequencing and genuine validation checkpoints (missing-figure and missing-numeral flagging). Its weaknesses are modest: a triple-stated numeral convention, no guidance for choosing between the CN and US/EP description templates, and no remediation path for flagged missing figures or numerals.
Suggestions
Add one line stating how to select the jurisdiction template in Step 4 (e.g., derive from the language of patent/CLAIMS.md or an explicit --jurisdiction argument), since both CN and US/EP templates are given but the choice criterion is never specified.
Deduplicate the numeral-series convention: state it once in Constants and have Step 3 and Key Rules reference it, rather than explaining the 100/200/300 ranges in three places.
Add a brief remediation step after Step 6 for flagged items (e.g., generate placeholder descriptions or ask the user for the missing figures) so the validation loop closes instead of only recording MISSING flags.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is tight — constants, tables, and one-line rules with no padding of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimmable redundancy exists: the numeral-series convention is explained three times ("NUMERAL_SERIES = 100" in Constants, the table in Step 3, and "Numeral series must be consistent" in Key Rules), keeping it just below the 'lean and efficient' anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is largely executable: exact output paths ("patent/figures/figure_descriptions.md"), copy-paste formal sentence templates for both jurisdictions, and concrete table schemas for the numeral index and claim cross-reference. The main gap is that Step 4 provides CN and US/EP templates but never states how to determine which jurisdiction applies, a missing key detail for execution. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven well-sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints: Step 1 flags figures missing relative to claims and Step 6 verifies "every claim element has at least one reference numeral" with MISSING flags. It falls short of the score-5 anchor because there is no error-recovery loop — flagged items are recorded but no step says what to do next — and the jurisdiction-selection decision point is implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and none are referenced; the single-file body is organized into clear headed sections (Constants, Inputs, Workflow steps, Key Rules) of appropriate length for one-level content. Structure is good but a couple of sections (e.g., the two output templates and jurisdiction variants) would sit equally well in a reference file, so it matches 'good structure; minor organization gaps' rather than optimal. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |