invention-structuring
Structure a raw invention idea into a formal invention disclosure. Use when user says "构建发明", "structure invention", "发明构建", "invention disclosure", or wants to formalize a rough idea into a patent-ready structure.
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 description with excellent trigger term coverage (bilingual) and a clear 'Use when' clause that makes it easy for Claude to select appropriately. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion is somewhat high-level—it could benefit from listing specific sub-actions involved in structuring an invention disclosure. Overall, it performs well for skill selection purposes.
Suggestions
Add 2-3 specific concrete actions to the 'what' portion, e.g., 'Identifies technical problem and solution, drafts claim outlines, organizes background and embodiments into a formal invention disclosure.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names the domain (invention disclosure) and one action (structure a raw invention idea into a formal disclosure), but doesn't list multiple specific concrete actions like what structuring entails (e.g., drafting claims, identifying prior art, defining technical problem/solution). | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (structure a raw invention idea into a formal invention disclosure) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with specific trigger phrases and a broader condition about formalizing rough ideas). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes both Chinese and English trigger terms that users would naturally say: '构建发明', 'structure invention', '发明构建', 'invention disclosure', plus the natural language phrase 'formalize a rough idea into a patent-ready structure'. Good coverage of bilingual variations. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The niche of invention disclosure structuring is quite specific and unlikely to conflict with other skills. The bilingual trigger terms and patent-specific language create a clear, distinct identity. | 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 well-structured, highly actionable skill that provides a clear 7-step workflow for structuring invention disclosures. Its strengths are the concrete output template, explicit validation step with MCP tool integration, and well-defined feature decomposition framework. The main weaknesses are moderate verbosity (some explanations Claude doesn't need) and references to bundle files that don't exist, which limits progressive disclosure scoring.
Suggestions
Trim explanatory text that Claude already knows — e.g., remove phrases like 'not a commercial or social problem' and 'They narrow the scope but add practical value' which are basic patent knowledge.
Provide the referenced shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md as a bundle file, or remove the reference if it doesn't exist, to ensure path accuracy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is reasonably structured but includes some explanatory content that Claude already knows (e.g., explaining what a technical problem is, what dependent claims are). The bilingual labels (Chinese/English) add useful context for patent jurisdictions but some table entries and descriptions could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly concrete, actionable guidance: specific output templates, exact MCP tool call syntax with parameters, structured tables for claim categories and drawing plans, a complete output markdown template, and a clear dependency mapping format. Each step tells Claude exactly what to produce. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced with logical dependencies (prior art → problem-solution → decomposition → claim identification → drawing plan → dependency mapping → validation → output). Step 6 provides an explicit cross-model validation checkpoint with a fallback instruction if the tool is unavailable, and the key rules section adds important constraints. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files (patent-writing-principles.md, PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md, NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md) but no bundle files are provided to support these references. The content is somewhat monolithic — the detailed tables and templates could potentially be split into referenced files. However, for a skill of this complexity, keeping it in one file is defensible. | 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.