The body is mostly efficient and well-structured, but elements like the "Key Rules" section restate patent-law fundamentals (e.g. "Patent novelty is absolute", "Obviousness requires BOTH...") that a competent Claude largely already knows, adding some avoidable tokens.

It gives concrete matrices and a runnable Codex MCP call block, but the step instructions lean on templates and placeholders ("[invention description + preliminary claims]", "Feature A") rather than fully executable commands; the output section is a skeleton rather than copy-paste-ready content.

Steps 1–6 are clearly sequenced and Step 2/3 verdict logic is explicit, but there is no validation checkpoint between anticipation and obviousness analysis and no error-recovery feedback loop for the cross-model examiner call beyond a single skip-note, so checkpoints are only implicit.

It references shared files (patent-writing-principles.md, patent-format-us.md) and input/output artifacts one level deep, but those references are not present in the bundle and the inline matrices/templates could arguably live in separate reference files; structure is reasonable but not optimally split.

"Assess patent novelty and non-obviousness against prior art" lists concrete, specific analytical actions (novelty assessment, non-obviousness assessment, comparison against prior art) rather than vague verbs.

Explicitly answers "what" (assess patent novelty and non-obviousness against prior art) and "when" via the "Use when user says..." clause with explicit triggers, satisfying both halves.

Includes both natural English ("patent novelty", "patentability check") and Chinese variations ("专利查新", "可专利性评估") that a user would actually say, giving good multilingual coverage.

The patent-novelty niche with its specific trigger phrases (including the note distinguishing it from research novelty) is clearly distinct and unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills.