patent-review
- Repo stars 11,320
- Author updated Live
- Author repo Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
- Domain
- Engineering
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @wanshuiyin · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Plug-and-play
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools，默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: patent-review
description: Get a multi-round patent examiner review of the patent application based on: $ARGUMENTS Adapted…
category: engineering
runtime: no special runtime
---
# patent-review output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Get a multi-round patent examiner review of the patent application based on: $ARGUMENTS Adapted from /research-review. The reviewer persona is a patent examiner, not a paper reviewer. runs entirely locally. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline and 23 more..
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Constants / Prerequisites / Inputs” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Get a multi-round patent examiner review of the patent application based on: $ARGUMENTS Adapted from /research-review. The reviewer persona is a patent examiner, not a paper reviewer. runs entirely locally. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline and 23 more.”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Constants / Prerequisites / Inputs” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. Choose the trigger
The source mentions slash commands such as `/research-review`; use them first when your agent supports command triggers.
Provide inputs and boundaries
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files.
Validate with a small run
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Constants / Prerequisites / Inputs”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Review before delivery
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: patent-review
description: Get a multi-round patent examiner review of the patent application based on: $ARGUMENTS Adapted…
category: engineering
source: wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep
---
# patent-review
## When to use
- Get a multi-round patent examiner review of the patent application based on: $ARGUMENTS Adapted from /research-review.…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “Constants / Prerequisites / Inputs” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. Evidence boundary and execution chain
The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "patent-review" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Constants / Prerequisites / Inputs
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
}Patent Examiner Review via Codex MCP (xhigh reasoning)
Get a multi-round patent examiner review of the patent application based on: $ARGUMENTS
Adapted from /research-review. The reviewer persona is a patent examiner, not a paper reviewer.
Constants
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.5— Model used via Codex MCPREVIEW_ROUNDS = 2— Number of review roundsEXAMINER_PERSONA = "patent-examiner"— GPT-5.5 persona
Prerequisites
- Codex MCP Server configured:
claude mcp add codex -s user -- codex mcp-server
Inputs
patent/CLAIMS.md— all drafted claimspatent/specification/— all specification sectionspatent/figures/numeral_index.md— reference numeral mappingpatent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md— known prior artpatent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md— invention structure
Workflow
Step 1: Gather Patent Context
Before calling the external reviewer, compile a comprehensive briefing:
- Read all claims (independent + dependent)
- Read specification sections (at least summary and detailed description)
- Read prior art report for context
- Identify: core inventive concept, claim scope, known prior art, target jurisdiction
Step 2: Round 1 — Full Examiner Review
Send to REVIEWER_MODEL via mcp__codex__codex with xhigh reasoning:
mcp__codex__codex:
config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
prompt: |
You are a senior patent examiner at the [USPTO/CNIPA/EPO].
Examine this patent application and issue a detailed office action.
CLAIMS:
[all claims]
SPECIFICATION SUMMARY:
[key sections: title, technical field, background, summary, abstract]
PRIOR ART KNOWN:
[prior art references]
PATENTABILITY STANDARDS TO APPLY:
[US: 35 USC 101/102/103/112 | CN: Articles 22, 26 | EP: Articles 54, 56, 83, 84]
Please issue an office action covering:
1. CLAIM CLARITY (112(b)/Art 84):
- Are all terms definite?
- Any indefinite functional language?
- Antecedent basis issues?
2. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION (112(a)/Art 83 first para):
- Does the spec support ALL claim scope?
- Any claim elements without spec support?
3. ENABLEMENT (112(a)/Art 83):
- Can a POSITA practice the invention?
- Any missing algorithm/structure for functional claims?
4. NOVELTY (102/Art 54):
- Would any known reference anticipate any claim?
- Identify the closest single reference.
5. NON-OBVIOUSNESS (103/Art 56):
- Would any combination render claims obvious?
- What is the motivation to combine?
6. CLAIM SCOPE:
- Are independent claims broad enough to be commercially valuable?
- Do dependent claims provide meaningful fallback positions?
- Any claims that are too broad (likely rejected) or too narrow (not valuable)?
7. SPECIFICATION QUALITY:
- Language issues (subjective terms, relative terms, result-to-be-achieved)
- Reference numeral consistency
- Missing embodiments
Format your response as a formal office action with:
- GROUNDS OF REJECTION for each issue (cite statute)
- SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS for each issue
- OVERALL PATENTABILITY SCORE: 1-10
Be rigorous and specific. This is a real examination.Step 3: Implement Fixes (Round 1)
Based on the examiner's office action:
CRITICAL issues (102 rejection, 112 indefiniteness, missing enablement):
- Must be fixed before proceeding
- Amend claims or add specification support
MAJOR issues (103 obviousness, weak claim scope, missing support):
- Should be fixed or argued
- Consider claim amendments or specification additions
MINOR issues (language quality, numeral consistency, formatting):
- Fix if time permits
- Document in output for later cleanup
For each fix:
- Show the specific change (old claim -> new claim)
- Explain how the fix addresses the examiner's concern
Step 4: Round 2 — Follow-Up Review
Use mcp__codex__codex with the threadId from Round 1:
mcp__codex__codex:
threadId: [from Round 1]
prompt: |
Here is the revised patent application after addressing your office action.
CHANGES MADE:
[list of all changes with rationale]
REVISED CLAIMS:
[updated claims]
REVISED SPECIFICATION EXCERPTS:
[changed sections]
Please re-examine:
1. Are the previous rejections overcome?
2. Are there new issues introduced by the amendments?
3. What is the updated patentability score?
4. Any remaining grounds for rejection?Step 5: Generate Improvement Report
Write patent/PATENT_REVIEW.md:
## Patent Review Report
### Application Summary
[Title, claims count, jurisdiction]
### Review Round 1
#### Office Action Summary
[Key findings from examiner]
#### Issues Found
| # | Type | Severity | Claim/Section | Issue | Citation | Fix Applied |
|---|------|----------|--------------|-------|----------|-------------|
| 1 | Clarity | CRITICAL | Claim 3 | Indefinite term "rapid" | 112(b) | Defined in spec |
| 2 | Novelty | MAJOR | Claim 1 | Ref X anticipates element C | 102 | Amended claim |
#### Score After Round 1: [X]/10
### Review Round 2
#### Follow-Up Assessment
[Are previous rejections overcome?]
#### Remaining Issues
[Any issues still outstanding]
#### Score After Round 2: [X]/10
### Recommendations
[Final recommendations before proceeding to jurisdiction formatting]
- [ ] All CRITICAL issues resolved
- [ ] All MAJOR issues resolved or argued
- [ ] Specification supports all claim amendments
- [ ] Ready for jurisdiction formattingKey Rules
- The reviewer persona must be a patent examiner, not a paper reviewer or academic.
- Always use
model_reasoning_effort: "xhigh"for maximum analysis depth. - Address CRITICAL and MAJOR issues before proceeding to the next phase.
- Document all changes in the review report for traceability.
- If the patentability score is below 5/10 after Round 2, recommend significant rework before filing.
- The review is advisory -- actual prosecution may proceed differently.
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review