agentleFS
Sign inStart free
PthahnixPthahnix/De-Anthropocentric-Research-Engine/skills/assess-patent-claim-scope/SKILL.md

assess-patent-claim-scope

Skill504 starsChanged 50 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Assess protection breadth, limiting elements, support, overlap, design-around vulnerability, and likely scope uncertainty for a patent claim without making legal conclusions beyond the evidence.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Do not infer broad protection from a title or abstract, and do not treat technical similarity as claim overlap.

    line 42

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

assess-patent-claim-scope

Purpose

Assess claim breadth, limiting elements, support, overlap, design-around vulnerability, and scope uncertainty without making a legal conclusion beyond the evidence.

Input contract

required: [parsed_claim, cited_support, jurisdiction_scope]
optional: [related_claims, family_map, prior_art_records]
constraints: [each scope judgment must identify claim language, support, jurisdiction, and uncertainty]

Procedure

  1. Separate mandatory, optional, functional, and contextual claim elements.
  2. Map each element to disclosed support and identify limiting combinations.
  3. Compare overlap and distinction against related claims and declared prior-art records.
  4. Record design-around paths and unresolved interpretation questions.

Output contract

produces: [element_scope_map, support_map, overlap_assessment, design_around_options, scope_uncertainties]
delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, decisions, open_questions]

Quality gates

  • Mandatory elements and jurisdiction are explicit.
  • Overlap claims cite the compared claim language.
  • Unclear terms remain uncertainty markers.

Failure and counterexamples

Do not infer broad protection from a title or abstract, and do not treat technical similarity as claim overlap.

Provenance map

  • resolved: knowledge-acquisition-claim-analysis
  • resolved: quality-scoring

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free