patent-review
Get an external patent examiner review of a patent application. Use when user says "专利审查", "patent review", "审查意见", "examiner review", or wants critical feedback on patent claims and specification.
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 description with excellent trigger term coverage (including bilingual terms) and a clear 'Use when' clause that makes it easy for Claude to select appropriately. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion is somewhat general — it could benefit from listing specific actions the skill performs (e.g., evaluating novelty, checking claim scope, identifying prior art issues) rather than just 'get an external patent examiner review.'
Suggestions
Expand the capability description with specific concrete actions, e.g., 'Evaluates patent claims for novelty and non-obviousness, checks specification sufficiency, identifies prior art concerns, and provides examiner-style office action feedback.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names the domain (patent examination/review) and a general action (get an external patent examiner review), but doesn't list multiple specific concrete actions like analyzing claims, checking novelty, evaluating prior art, or reviewing specification compliance. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (get an external patent examiner review of a patent application) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with specific trigger phrases and a broader condition about wanting critical feedback on patent claims). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms in both Chinese and English: '专利审查', 'patent review', '审查意见', 'examiner review', plus the natural phrase 'critical feedback on patent claims and specification'. Good multilingual coverage of terms users would actually say. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche — patent examiner review is very specific and unlikely to conflict with other skills. The bilingual trigger terms and focus on examiner-style critical feedback further narrow the scope. | 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-crafted, highly actionable skill that provides a clear multi-step workflow for patent examination review via an external MCP tool. Its strengths are the concrete prompt templates, severity-based issue triage, and explicit feedback loop between review rounds. The main weakness is that it's somewhat monolithic — the detailed prompt templates and output format could benefit from being split into referenced files — and there's minor verbosity in a few sections.
Suggestions
Consider extracting the large prompt templates (Round 1 and Round 2) into separate reference files (e.g., prompts/round1.md, prompts/round2.md) to improve progressive disclosure and reduce the main file's length.
Remove or consolidate the Constants section — 'EXAMINER_PERSONA = patent-examiner' is never referenced in the actual prompts, and the model/rounds info could be inline where used.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly long but most content is substantive — the detailed prompt templates and structured output format earn their place. However, some sections are slightly verbose (e.g., the Constants section listing an 'EXAMINER_PERSONA' that isn't referenced elsewhere, and the Prerequisites section could be trimmed). The prompt templates themselves are necessarily detailed but could be more concise in places. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides fully concrete, executable guidance: specific MCP tool calls with exact parameters, detailed prompt templates ready to use, a structured output format with table schema, and clear fix categorization (CRITICAL/MAJOR/MINOR) with specific actions for each. The workflow is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: Round 1 review → categorize and fix issues (with severity-based prioritization) → Round 2 follow-up review using threadId for continuity → generate report with checklist. The feedback loop (fix → re-examine → verify rejections overcome) is well-defined, and the severity-gated progression (CRITICAL must be fixed before proceeding) provides clear guardrails. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is a single monolithic file with no bundle files or references to supporting documents. While the content is well-organized with clear headers, the lengthy prompt templates and output format could potentially be split into separate reference files. For a skill of this complexity (~150 lines of substantive content), some progressive disclosure into referenced files would improve navigability. | 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.