Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Raw1mage/patentmcpWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/raw1mage/patentmcp/review-epo-claims)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/raw1mage/patentmcp/review-epo-claims"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/raw1mage/patentmcp/review-epo-claims/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/raw1mage/patentmcp/review-epo-claims"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/raw1mage/patentmcp/review-epo-claims.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00022 | $0.02304 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.01152 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00461 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00230 |
Grade A, and why
review-epo-claims scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 11d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to review-epo-claims — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 327 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
EPO Claims Review
Automated analysis of patent claims for European Patent Office compliance with Art. 84 EPC / Rule 43 EPC / EPO Guidelines Part F.
Focus Area: $ARGUMENTS
What This Command Does
Performs comprehensive EPO claims analysis:
-
Clarity Analysis (Art. 84 EPC):
- Identifies unclear or ambiguous terms
- Detects relative terms without reference points
- Checks for consistent terminology throughout claims
- Validates technical feature definitions
-
Conciseness Check (Art. 84 EPC):
- Detects redundant claims
- Identifies unnecessarily complex claim structures
- Checks for duplicate scope between claims
- Validates claim set economy
-
Support by Description (Art. 84 EPC):
- Verifies all claimed features are disclosed in the description
- Checks claim scope does not exceed disclosure
- Validates generalizations from specific examples
- Identifies unsupported claim breadth
-
Claim Structure (Rule 43 EPC):
- Validates two-part form (preamble + characterizing portion) where appropriate
- Checks independent claim structure
- Validates dependent claim references
- Verifies claim categories (product, process, apparatus, use)
-
Issue Categorization:
- Critical: Will cause objection under Art. 84 EPC
- Important: May cause objection or limit claim scope
- Minor: Best practice improvements per EPO Guidelines
Who This Is For
- Patent attorneys preparing EP applications
- Applicants responding to EPO Art. 84 objections
- Practitioners converting US claims to EPO format
- Quality assurance before EP filing or Euro-PCT entry
Process
Step 1: Provide Claims
You can provide claims in three ways:
Option 1: Paste claims directly
/review-epo-claims
> Paste your claims text, then type 'END' on a new line:
1. A system for authenticating users, characterised in that
the system comprises a distributed ledger configured to
store and verify credentials.
2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the distributed
ledger is a blockchain.
END
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 11d ago First seen · 327 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A dccdb6b9aa4e
review-epo-claims is a command published in the GitHub repository Raw1mage/patentmcp (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 2,304 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to review-epo-claims, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
close-review
Month-end close / GL compliance check — invokes accounting-reviewer to produce TM-accounting-{slug}.md with double-entry integrity, ASC 606 revenue-recognition, period-lock, and SOX ITGC gaps.
coding-audit
Medical-coding / revenue-cycle compliance audit. Invokes rcm-reviewer to assess autonomous ICD-10-CM / CPT / HCPCS coding for False Claims Act exposure (upcoding/unbundling), NCCI edits + MUEs, medical necessity (LCD/NCD), modifier discipline, HIPAA minimum-necessary — and force a certified-coder (CPC/CCS) sign-off.
procurement-review
Procurement / source-to-pay compliance check — invokes procurement-reviewer to produce TM-procurement-{slug}.md with three-way match, segregation-of-duties, OFAC-screening, and SOX procurement-controls gaps.
msp-review
MSP / managed-services compliance check — invokes msp-reviewer to produce TM-msp-{slug}.md with client-isolation, credential-vaulting, SLA-tracking, and incident-escalation gaps.
tax-review
Tax-filing compliance check — invokes tax-reviewer to produce TM-tax-{slug}.md with MeF e-file schema, Form 8879, PTIN/Circular 230, and IRC §7216 consent gaps.
voice-compliance
Voice/telephony compliance check — invokes voice-ai-reviewer to produce TM-voice-{slug}.md with TCPA, STIR/SHAKEN, state recording-consent, EU AI Act Art. 50, and synth-voice deepfake-law gaps.