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-organized, actionable instruction-only skill with concrete formatting templates and a verification checklist across all three jurisdictions. The main gaps are the underspecified docx generation path and the absence of an explicit error-recovery loop.
Suggestions
Provide concrete python-docx code (or a runnable script reference) for the docx branch instead of the high-level 'use python-docx' instruction, covering font and margin setup.
Turn the Step 5 consistency check into an explicit feedback loop: 'If any checkbox fails, fix the offending format and re-run the check before writing the output summary.'
Deduplicate the consistency checklist so it lives in one place (Step 5) and the OUTPUT_SUMMARY template simply references its result, trimming the inlined template.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes competence (no patent/CNIPA concept explanations), but the consistency checklist is duplicated in Step 5 and again inside the OUTPUT_SUMMARY template, and the summary template is somewhat padded. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout — exact file paths, claim-format templates, section ordering, word limits, fonts, and margins — but the docx branch only says 'use python-docx' with no executable code, leaving that path underspecified. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Six clearly sequenced steps with a Step 5 consistency checklist provide good validation for this batch operation, but there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop when a check fails. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good structure with a dedicated Shared References section pointing one level deep to patent-format-cn/us/ep.md, though the full OUTPUT_SUMMARY template is inlined and the referenced files are external to the bundle. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |