Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Structure a raw invention idea into a formal invention disclosure. Use when user says "构建发明", "structure invention", "发明构建", "invention disclosure", or wants to formalize a rough idea into a patent-ready structure.
.claude/skills/wanshuiyin-invention-structuring/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 171% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 85% | 0% |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -14% | 0% |
| case-21 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 27% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | -63% | 0% |
Structure the invention into a formal disclosure based on: $ARGUMENTS
Adapted from the refinement pattern in /research-refine for patent invention decomposition.
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-6-astra — External reviewer for invention decomposition validationMAX_REFINEMENT_ROUNDS = 3 — Maximum structuring iterations$ARGUMENTSpatent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md if existspatent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md — prior art landscapepatent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md — novelty analysisLoad ../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md for the Problem-Solution-Advantage framework and claimable subject matter guidelines.
Structure the invention using the universal patent framework:
Technical Problem (要解决的技术问题):
Technical Solution (技术方案):
Advantages (有益效果):
Break the invention into three layers:
Core Inventive Concept (核心发明构思):
Supporting Features (支撑性特征):
Optional Features (可选特征):
For the core inventive concept, determine what categories of claims to draft:
| Category | Applicability | Content | |----------|-------------|---------| | Method/process | If invention involves steps | Process flow, algorithm, workflow | | System/apparatus | If invention involves components | Hardware structure, modules, connections | | Product | If invention is a physical device | Shape, structure, composition | | Computer-readable medium | If software invention (US) | Stored instructions, non-transitory medium | | Product-by-process | If structure is hard to define | Product defined by how it is made |
Plan what figures are needed to support the claims and specification:
| Figure | Type | Shows | Supports Claim Elements | |--------|------|-------|------------------------| | FIG. 1 | Block diagram | System architecture | System claim components | | FIG. 2 | Flowchart | Method steps | Method claim steps | | FIG. 3 | Sequence diagram | Interaction between components | Specific implementation details |
If user has provided figures, reference them here. If figures are missing, note what is needed.
Map feature dependencies to plan the claim hierarchy:
Independent Claim 1 (method, broadest scope)
├── Core inventive feature A
├── Core inventive feature B
└── Known feature C (for context)
Dependent Claim 2 → narrows feature A with specific implementation
Dependent Claim 3 → narrows feature B with specific parameters
Dependent Claim 4 → depends on 2, adds optional feature D
Dependent Claim 5 → alternative implementation of feature ACall REVIEWER_MODEL via a dedicated Codex reviewer agent at xhigh reasoning:
textspawn_agent: model: gpt-6-astra reasoning_effort: xhigh message: | You are a patent attorney reviewing an invention disclosure. Evaluate the structuring choices: INVENTION: [Problem-Solution-Advantage summary] DECOMPOSITION: [Core/Supporting/Optional features] CLAIM PLAN: [intended claim categories and hierarchy] Please assess: 1. Is the Problem-Solution-Advantage framework correctly applied? 2. Is the core inventive concept correctly identified? Are there features that should be core but are listed as supporting (or vice versa)? 3. Are the planned claim categories sufficient to protect the invention? 4. Is the drawing plan adequate for enablement? 5. Are there any claimable aspects being missed?
Write patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md:
markdown## Invention Disclosure ### Title [invention title] ### Technical Problem [formal problem statement] ### Technical Solution [formal solution description] ### Advantages [measurable advantages] ### Feature Decomposition #### Core Inventive Concept [features that define independent claim scope] #### Supporting Features [features for dependent claims] #### Optional Features [features for embodiments] ### Claimable Subject Matter [method, system, product, medium claims planned] ### Drawing Plan [figures needed, what each shows] ### Dependency Map [claim hierarchy plan] ### Inventor Information [names, contributions] ### Target Jurisdiction [CN/US/EP/ALL]
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-03 | fail→fail | 54,088 | 16,869 | -69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 8,293 | 2,011 | -76% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→fail | 31,231 | 15,925 | -49% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,657 | 1,738 | -63% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→fail | 50,991 | 69,500 | +36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 7,480 | 8,404 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 13,750 | 14,639 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 272 | 1,667 | +513% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 46,469 | 15,577 | -66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,737 | 1,710 | -75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→fail | 22,737 | 18,146 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,941 | 3,865 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 18,188 | 28,362 | +56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,935 | 5,240 | +171% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | 13,736 | 26,169 | +91% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,289 | 3,241 | +151% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 20,319 | 22,084 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,215 | 4,096 | +85% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 36,323 | 23,732 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,365 | 4,601 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | 18,956 | 14,849 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 251 | 1,627 | +548% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 31,003 | 22,279 | -28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,884 | 4,245 | -13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 19,011 | 27,162 | +43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,262 | 4,902 | +117% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 52,295 | 49,783 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 8,237 | 8,429 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→fail | 21,632 | 17,556 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,571 | 2,037 | -21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 19,432 | 23,638 | +22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,229 | 4,136 | +86% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 18,900 | 14,402 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,164 | 2,851 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→fail | 27,703 | 17,468 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,712 | 1,897 | -49% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 19,167 | 14,192 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,098 | 2,754 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 22,481 | 23,544 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,473 | 4,310 | +74% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 14,723 | 7,939 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,482 | 1,878 | +27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 23,068 | 21,627 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,707 | 3,979 | +47% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 15 counted toward the lift figure. The other 7 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of -5 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 15 comparable cases. 7 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
| Model | Method | Date | Lift |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-3.6-flash | verified | 8/11/2026 | — |
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.