Conciseness

The body is mostly task-specific (phase structure, patent rules, state schema), but the pipeline is diagrammed twice (the sub-skill chain and the idea-discovery track diagram convey overlapping information), the "⛔ STOP HERE and wait for user response. Do NOT auto-proceed unless AUTO_PROCEED=true" boilerplate is repeated at each phase, and the opening reviewer-routing blockquote is dense meta-protocol text. It fits 'mostly efficient but could be tightened' — not 2 because no space is spent explaining concepts Claude already knows, and not 4 because the duplication and repeated boilerplate are trimmable.

Actionability

Concrete, copy-paste-ready sub-skill invocations with exact arguments (e.g., `/prior-art-search "patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md"`), exact output paths, a concrete PATENT_STATE.json schema, and ready-to-fill checkpoint templates. It falls short of 5 because the reviewer-slot instructions delegate all operational detail to an external reference and the checkpoint templates remain placeholder outlines rather than worked examples.

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0-5 are clearly sequenced, each phase has an explicit checkpoint ("⛔ STOP HERE and wait for user response") with go/adjust/stop options, an explicit validation feedback loop exists (2 examiner review rounds via `/patent-review` bounded by MAX_REVIEW_ROUNDS with revision cycles), and state persistence with resume/staleness rules supports error recovery. This matches the top anchor: clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, and recovery handling.

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and the single file reference in the body (`../shared-references/reviewer-backends.md`) points outside the bundle and does not exist in the workspace, so it cannot be verified. Material that could live in separate files — the patent-type specification tables, the jurisdiction deliverables table, and the reviewer-routing protocol — is inlined in one ~340-line SKILL.md. Sections are well-organized with clear headers (above anchor 2), but the one reference is not resolvable within the bundle and separable content is inline (below anchor 4).

Specificity

It names the domain and the core transformation concretely — "Full patent drafting pipeline from invention description to jurisdiction-formatted filing documents" — plus concrete scope ("Supports CN (CNIPA), US (USPTO), EP (EPO)", invention patents and utility models). This matches 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive': below 4 because it does not enumerate the pipeline's several distinct actions (prior art search, claims drafting, specification writing), and above 2 because the actions stated are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is concrete ("Full patent drafting pipeline from invention description to jurisdiction-formatted filing documents" with jurisdiction and patent-type scope) and the "when" is explicit with concrete trigger phrases ("Use when user says \"写专利\", \"patent pipeline\", ... or wants to draft a complete patent application"). This matches the top anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-keyword coverage in two languages — "写专利", "patent pipeline", "专利申请", "draft patent", "写权利要求书" — including synonyms a user would actually say. Not 5 because common variations are missing (e.g., "file a patent", "patent claims", "实用新型"/"utility model").

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Patent drafting is a clear niche, and the triggers ("写专利", "写权利要求书", "draft patent") are distinct phrases unlikely to fire for other skills; conflict risk with general writing or document skills is minimal. Matches the top anchor.