Content
71%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-structured, information-dense skill: the workflow is clearly sequenced with a real validation checkpoint, and the jurisdiction-specific formatting rules are concrete enough to execute directly. Its weaknesses are the absent feedback loop after the Step 5 consistency check and a progressive-disclosure gap where the shared-reference files the body depends on are missing from the bundle while their content is duplicated inline.
Suggestions
Add an explicit feedback loop after Step 5, e.g. 'If any checklist item fails, fix the affected output file and re-run the consistency check before writing OUTPUT_SUMMARY.md', and have Step 6 mark each checklist item pass/fail rather than leaving unchecked boxes.
Resolve the progressive-disclosure gap: either include the ../shared-references/patent-format-{cn,us,ep}.md files in the bundle or trim the inline per-jurisdiction detail to the key rules, offloading full CNIPA/USPTO/EPO template specifics to those reference files.
Make verification steps executable — specify how to check the abstract limits (e.g. a character/word count command against abstract.md) instead of the bare directives 'Verify word count <= 300 Chinese characters' and '~150 words limit'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with jurisdiction-specific facts Claude needs (CNIPA claim phrasing, 宋体/黑体 fonts, 2.54cm/3.17cm margins, EPO Rule 42 order, abstract word limits) and explains almost nothing Claude already knows. Minor redundancy keeps it below a 5: the Step 5 consistency checklist is duplicated in the Step 6 OUTPUT_SUMMARY template, and the fixed 'Complete' status column in the file tables is illustrative filler. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | For an instruction-only skill the guidance is highly concrete — exact output paths, section orders, claim phrasings like "1. 一种[主题]的方法，...其特征在于...", font/margin specs, and a fallback rule for missing python-docx. Minor gaps remain: 'verify word count <= 300' and 'combine all specification sections' specify outcomes but not the mechanism, and the shared-references that presumably carry the details are not present in the bundle. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence covers jurisdiction selection, per-jurisdiction generation, and an explicit Step 5 consistency-check checklist with concrete items (claim presence, numbering, reference numerals, language) — a real validation checkpoint for this batch operation. It misses a 5 because there is no feedback loop: no instruction for what to do when a checklist item fails (fix, re-check, re-verify) and the Step 6 summary renders the checklist as unchecked boxes. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is good and the three references ("Load ../shared-references/patent-format-cn.md for CNIPA document structure and formatting rules") are clearly signaled and one level deep — but none of those referenced files exist in the bundle, and ~130 lines of per-jurisdiction formatting detail are inlined in SKILL.md, which is exactly the material the shared-references are meant to carry. This sits between the 'references present but content that should be separate is inline' anchor (3) and 'most content appropriately placed' (4); the missing referenced files and inline duplication pull it to 3. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |