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.
85
83%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
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 to better set expectations.
Suggestions
Add 2-3 specific concrete actions that describe what structuring entails, e.g., 'Identifies technical problem and solution, drafts claim outlines, organizes prior art references, and defines inventive contributions.'
| 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 structuring invention disclosures 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 for patent invention disclosure structuring. Its greatest strengths are the clear 7-step workflow with validation, concrete output templates, and specific decision criteria. The main weaknesses are moderate verbosity in explanatory sections and missing bundle files for referenced paths, which limits the progressive disclosure score.
Suggestions
Trim explanatory text that Claude already knows (e.g., remove 'not a commercial or social problem' clarification, simplify table descriptions) to improve conciseness.
Provide the referenced bundle files (patent-writing-principles.md) or note them as user-provided dependencies to strengthen progressive disclosure and avoid broken references.
| 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 value for patent context 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 invocation syntax with parameters, structured tables for claim categories and drawing plans, a complete output markdown template, and clear decomposition criteria with tests (e.g., 'if you remove this feature, the invention is no longer novel'). | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced with logical progression from problem framing through decomposition, claim planning, validation, and output. Step 6 provides an explicit cross-model validation checkpoint with a feedback mechanism, and the Key Rules section adds important constraints. The fallback for unavailable MCP tool is also noted. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files (patent-writing-principles.md, PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md, NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md) which is good, but no bundle files are provided to support these references. The skill itself is fairly long (~150 lines of substantive content) and some sections like the claimable subject matter table and drawing plan table could potentially be in referenced files. The shared reference path is clearly signaled though. | 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
2028ac4
- 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.