specification-writing
Skill2 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Write the full patent specification from claims and invention disclosure. Use when user says \"撰写说明书\", \"write specification\", \"写说明书\", \"patent description\", or wants to draft the complete patent specification.
6 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- epicenter-md/epicentertheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- EpicenterHQ/epicentertheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- jahfaliabdulrahman-dev/hermes-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 3, 2026
- talhaMah56/claude_skillsedited, first seen Sep 12, 2026
- aianime0012-coder/vitruvius-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 4, 2026
- wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleepedited, first seen Jul 15, 2026
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 2
- wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep★ 19k82% same
- talhaMah56/claude_skills★ 085% same
Wrote their own version · 4
- epicenter-md/epicenter★ 4.8ksame name
- EpicenterHQ/epicenter★ 4.8ksame name
- jahfaliabdulrahman-dev/hermes-skills★ 1same name
- aianime0012-coder/vitruvius-skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository84 other files it gives its agents.
- skills/rules/common/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/rules/zh/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- ablation-plannerSkill
- alphaxivSkill
- analyze-resultsSkill
- arxivSkill
- auto-paper-improvement-loopSkill
- auto-review-loop-llmSkill
- auto-review-loop-minimaxSkill
- auto-review-loopSkill
- citation-auditSkill
- claims-draftingSkill
- comm-lit-review-claude-singleSkill
- deepxivSkill
- dse-loopSkill
- embodiment-descriptionSkill
- exa-searchSkill
- experiment-auditSkill
- experiment-bridgeSkill
- experiment-planSkill
- experiment-queueSkill
- feishu-notifySkill
- figure-descriptionSkill
- figure-specSkill
- formula-derivationSkill
- gemini-searchSkill
- grant-proposalSkill
- idea-creatorSkill
- idea-discovery-robotSkill
- idea-discoverySkill
- invention-structuringSkill
- jurisdiction-formatSkill
- kill-argumentSkill
- mermaid-diagramSkill
- meta-optimizeSkill
- monitor-experimentSkill
- novelty-checkSkill
- openalexSkill
- overleaf-syncSkill
- paper-claim-auditSkill
- paper-compileSkill
- paper-figureSkill
- paper-illustration-image2Skill
- paper-illustrationSkill
- paper-planSkill
- paper-posterSkill
- paper-slidesSkill
- paper-talkSkill
- paper-writeSkill
- paper-writingSkill
- patent-novelty-checkSkill
- patent-pipelineSkill
- patent-reviewSkill
- pixel-artSkill
- prior-art-searchSkill
- proof-checkerSkill
- proof-writerSkill
- qzcliSkill
- rebuttalSkill
- research-litSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
15
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 10
Write the patent specification based on: $ARGUMENTS
- Distinctive: line 38
Create the output directory and section files:
- Distinctive: line 53
Must match the broadest claim scope
- Distinctive: line 54
No trademarks, no "improved" or "new" or "novel"
- Distinctive: line 57
Keep concise (CN: typically under 25 characters.
- Distinctive: line 73
DO NOT admit the prior art is "superior" or "better"
- Distinctive: line 74
DO NOT cite specific patent numbers unless they are known prior art (citations go in IDS for US, or Background section for CN)
- Distinctive: line 88
Must provide support for ALL claim elements
- Distinctive: line 89
Start from the broadest claim and describe the core inventive concept
- Distinctive: line 106
If no user figures, describe what figures should exist based on the claims.
- Distinctive: line 143
Verify every claim element finds support in the specification:
- Distinctive: line 151
If any element lacks support, add the necessary description before proceeding.
- Very specific: line 155
Call REVIEWER_MODEL via mcp__codex__codex with xhigh reasoning:
- Very specific: line 176
All specification sections are in patent/specification/.
- Distinctive: line 203
Use consistent terminology -- same word for the same concept throughout.
- Distinctive: line 204
DO NOT include experimental results, accuracy metrics, or empirical evaluations.
- Distinctive: line 205
DO NOT use subjective language ("excellent", "surprising", "superior").
- Very specific: line 210
If mcp__codex__codex is not available, skip cross-model review and note it in the output.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Specification Writing: Section-by-Section Patent Description
Write the patent specification based on: $ARGUMENTS
Adapted from /paper-write for patent specifications. The specification supports the claims -- it is not a paper.
Constants
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.4— External reviewer for specification qualityJURISDICTION = "auto"— Inherit from pipeline or detect from args;CN,US,EP,ALLOUTPUT_FORMAT = "markdown"— Markdown drafts; converted to filing format by/jurisdiction-formatOUTPUT_DIR = "patent/"— Base output directoryLANGUAGE = "auto"— Auto from jurisdiction: CN->Chinese, US/EP->English
Inputs
patent/CLAIMS.md— the drafted claims (primary source)patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md— invention decompositionpatent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md— for background section- User-provided figures (if any)
Shared References
Load ../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md for specification writing rules, language guidelines, and reference numeral conventions.
Load ../shared-references/patent-format-cn.md or patent-format-us.md or patent-format-ep.md based on jurisdiction.
Workflow
Step 1: Initialize Specification Structure
Create the output directory and section files:
patent/specification/
├── title.md
├── technical_field.md
├── background.md
├── summary.md
├── drawings_description.md
├── detailed_description.md
└── abstract.mdStep 2: Write Title (发明名称)
- Must match the broadest claim scope
- No trademarks, no "improved" or "new" or "novel"
- CN format: "一种[领域]的[技术主题]" or "[领域]的[技术主题]装置"
- US/EP format: "[Technical topic] for [purpose]" or "[Technical topic] and method thereof"
- Keep concise (CN: typically under 25 characters; US: under 500 characters)
Step 3: Write Technical Field (技术领域)
1-2 paragraphs identifying the technical domain:
- "The present invention relates to [broad field], and more particularly to [specific area]."
- CN: "本发明涉及[技术领域],具体涉及[具体领域]。"
Step 4: Write Background (背景技术)
This is NOT a literature review. It directly sets up the problem.
Structure:
- Describe the closest prior art approaches (2-3 paragraphs)
- Identify specific technical deficiencies of each approach
- The deficiencies must be technical, not commercial or social
- DO NOT admit the prior art is "superior" or "better"
- DO NOT cite specific patent numbers unless they are known prior art (citations go in IDS for US, or Background section for CN)
CN format: "背景技术" section describing existing technology and its shortcomings.
Step 5: Write Summary (发明内容)
Three parts, directly mirroring INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md:
Technical Problem (要解决的技术问题):
- State the problem derived from background deficiencies
- CN: "本发明要解决的技术问题是..."
Technical Solution (技术方案):
- Describe how the invention solves the problem
- Must provide support for ALL claim elements
- Start from the broadest claim and describe the core inventive concept
- CN: "为解决上述技术问题,本发明采用的技术方案是:..."
- NO formulas, NO mathematical derivations, NO circuit models — these belong in 具体实施方式, not 发明内容
Advantages (有益效果):
- Benefits derived from the structural/technical features (qualitative reasoning)
- CN: "本发明的有益效果是:..."
- NO specific numerical results (e.g., "detection limit 70μm", "response time 105ms") — these are experimental findings, not invention properties
- Frame advantages structurally: "由于采用了...结构,因此具有...效果"
Step 6: Write Brief Description of Drawings (附图说明)
Invoke /figure-description as a sub-skill if user has provided figures:
/figure-description "patent/figures/"If no user figures, describe what figures should exist based on the claims.
Format:
- CN: "图1是...的示意图;图2是...的流程图;"
- US: "FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing...; FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating..."
Step 7: Write Detailed Description (具体实施方式)
Invoke /embodiment-description as a sub-skill:
/embodiment-description "patent/CLAIMS.md"This section must:
- Describe at least one complete embodiment with reference numerals
- Enable a POSITA to make and use the invention
- Support every claim element with explicit description
- Include variations and alternatives for broader claim interpretation
Step 8: Write Abstract (摘要)
Jurisdiction-specific word limits:
| Jurisdiction | Word Limit | Notes |
| CN | 300 words (Chinese characters) | Include most representative claim reference |
| US | 150 words (2500 characters) | Enable efficient searching, no legal phrases |
| EP | ~150 words | No statements on merits or value |
The abstract summarizes:
- The technical field
- The problem being solved
- The technical solution (core features)
- Key advantages
Step 9: Claim Support Verification
Verify every claim element finds support in the specification:
| Claim | Element | Specification Section | Paragraph(s) | Reference Numeral |
| 1 | step a | detailed_description | ¶3 | 202 |
| 1 | step b | detailed_description | ¶4 | 204 |
| X | component A | detailed_description | ¶2 | 102 |
If any element lacks support, add the necessary description before proceeding.
Step 10: Cross-Model Review
Call REVIEWER_MODEL via mcp__codex__codex with xhigh reasoning:
mcp__codex__codex:
config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
prompt: |
You are a patent examiner reviewing a specification for completeness.
CLAIMS: [all claims]
SPECIFICATION: [all specification sections]
Check for:
1. Written description support: Does every claim element have explicit or inherent support?
2. Enablement: Can a POSITA practice the invention from this specification?
3. Consistency: Do reference numerals match across figures and specification?
4. Language quality: Any subjective terms, relative terms without definition, or result-to-be-achieved language?
5. Missing embodiments: Are there claim features that need additional embodiments?
6. Background deficiencies: Are they technical and specific enough?Step 11: Output
All specification sections are in patent/specification/.
Summary file: patent/specification/SPECIFICATION_INDEX.md with:
## Patent Specification
### Sections
| Section | File | Word Count | Status |
|---------|------|-----------|--------|
| Title | title.md | | Complete |
| Technical Field | technical_field.md | | Complete |
| Background | background.md | | Complete |
| Summary | summary.md | | Complete |
| Drawings Description | drawings_description.md | | Complete |
| Detailed Description | detailed_description.md | | Complete |
| Abstract | abstract.md | | Complete |
### Claim Support Status
| Claim | Elements Supported | Elements Missing |
|-------|-------------------|-----------------|
| 1 | All | None |
| X | All | None |Key Rules
- The specification supports the claims, not the other way around. Every claim element must have support.
- Use consistent terminology -- same word for the same concept throughout.
- DO NOT include experimental results, accuracy metrics, or empirical evaluations.
- DO NOT use subjective language ("excellent", "surprising", "superior").
- Reference numerals must be consistent: same component, same numeral, everywhere.
- Background section describes specific deficiencies, not general "need for improvement."
- Multiple embodiments strengthen the specification but are not always required.
- Large file handling: if a Write operation fails, retry with Bash
cat <<'EOF'heredoc. - If
mcp__codex__codexis not available, skip cross-model review and note it in the output.
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
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.

