Content
82%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 content is highly actionable, providing concrete templates, tables, tool-invocation syntax, and a clear seven-step workflow with validation. Its minor gaps are the implicit (not explicit) refinement feedback loop and the single-file structure with only one external reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and avoids explaining basic patent concepts Claude already knows; bullets state useful constraints ('Must be a specific, technical problem (not a commercial or social problem)') rather than padding, with only minor instances that could be trimmed, fitting the score-4 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides copy-paste-ready templates: an exact problem-statement format, a claimable-subject-matter table, a dependency-map code block, a concrete mcp__codex__codex invocation with model and config, and a full output markdown template, matching the score-5 anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven steps are clearly sequenced with an explicit cross-model validation checkpoint (Step 6) and a graceful-degradation rule, but the revise-and-retry loop implied by MAX_REFINEMENT_ROUNDS is not explicitly wired into the steps, so it sits at score 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized into Constants, Inputs, Shared References, Workflow, and Key Rules, with a clearly signaled one-level reference ('Load ../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md'); as a monolithic single-file skill over 50 lines it is well structured but not a split-content design, fitting score 4. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |