jurisdiction-format
Compile patent application into jurisdiction-specific filing format. Use when user says "格式转换", "jurisdiction format", "国家格式", "compile patent", or wants formatted patent documents for CN/US/EP filing.
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 skill description with excellent trigger term coverage in both Chinese and English, clear 'when' guidance, and a distinctive niche. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion could be more specific about the concrete actions performed beyond just 'compile into filing format'—listing specific sub-tasks would strengthen it.
Suggestions
Expand the capability description with more specific actions, e.g., 'Compile patent application into jurisdiction-specific filing format, including claims formatting, drawing references, abstract generation, and compliance validation.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain (patent applications) and a core action (compile into jurisdiction-specific filing format), but it doesn't list multiple specific concrete actions like 'extract claims, format drawings, generate abstracts, validate compliance'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (compile patent application into jurisdiction-specific filing format) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with specific trigger phrases and use cases like wanting formatted patent documents for CN/US/EP filing). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms in both Chinese and English: '格式转换', 'jurisdiction format', '国家格式', 'compile patent', and specific jurisdiction codes CN/US/EP. Good coverage of bilingual user queries and common variations. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche combining patent applications with jurisdiction-specific formatting. The specific trigger terms (格式转换, CN/US/EP filing, compile patent) are unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 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 format compilation across CN/US/EP jurisdictions. Its greatest strengths are the concrete, jurisdiction-specific formatting rules and the clear 6-step workflow with validation. The main weakness is that it's somewhat long with jurisdiction-specific details inline that could be deferred to the referenced shared-reference files, and the output summary template adds bulk.
Suggestions
Move detailed jurisdiction-specific formatting rules (fonts, margins, section ordering, claim phrasing conventions) into the referenced shared-reference files and keep only a brief summary inline to improve conciseness and progressive disclosure.
Trim the OUTPUT_SUMMARY.md template to a shorter example or move it to a separate template file, since Claude can generate tables without a full example.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly detailed and mostly necessary given the complexity of multi-jurisdiction patent formatting, but includes some redundancy (e.g., the full output summary template is verbose, and some formatting conventions could be more terse). The analogy to '/paper-compile' is unnecessary filler. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides highly specific, concrete guidance: exact file paths, exact formatting conventions per jurisdiction (e.g., '其特征在于', 'characterised in that', 'FIG. 1'), exact section ordering, font specifications, margin sizes, word count limits, and fallback behavior. This is copy-paste actionable for Claude. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is clearly sequenced across 6 steps with explicit validation in Step 5 (consistency check with checklist items). The process includes a fallback for missing python-docx, and the checklist covers cross-format consistency verification. This is a well-structured multi-step workflow with appropriate validation checkpoints. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references shared-references files (patent-format-cn.md, patent-format-us.md, patent-format-ep.md) which is good progressive disclosure, but no bundle files are provided to verify these exist. The main SKILL.md itself is quite long (~180 lines) and some jurisdiction-specific formatting details could arguably live in those referenced files rather than being inline, creating some tension between the references and the inline content. | 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.