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-formalities)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/raw1mage/patentmcp/review-formalities"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/raw1mage/patentmcp/review-formalities.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00018 | $0.00353 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00177 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00071 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00035 |
Grade A, and why
review-formalities 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 8d 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-formalities — 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.
What it actually says
Formalities Check
Verify all formal requirements for a complete patent application.
Check Type: $ARGUMENTS
What I'll Check
- Abstract - 150 words max, proper content (MPEP 608.01(b))
- Title - 500 characters max, descriptive (MPEP 606)
- Drawings - All claim features shown, proper numbering (MPEP 608.02)
- Required Sections - Field, Background, Summary, etc.
- Filing Checklist - Declaration, fees, IDS
Specified check type focuses on that requirement; otherwise checks everything.
Process
- Ask for application sections
- Check each formality requirement
- Search MPEP for standards
- Generate compliance report with:
- Requirements checklist
- Non-compliance issues
- Fix instructions
- Pre-filing checklist
Output
- Section-by-section compliance status
- Issues with character/word counts
- Required vs optional items
- Filing preparation checklist
- Estimated fees based on claim count
DISCLAIMER: This tool assists with patent application preparation but does NOT replace legal advice from a registered patent attorney. Always consult with legal counsel before filing. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USPTO.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 49 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A b4abf1e3f39f
review-formalities is a command published in the GitHub repository Raw1mage/patentmcp (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 353 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-formalities, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
deps-audit
Audit project dependencies for vulnerabilities, outdated packages, license conflicts, and supply chain risks — then provide actionable remediation strategies.
review-epo-claims
Analyze patent claims for EPO Art. 84 EPC compliance - clarity, conciseness, support by description.
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.
review-policy
Review a policy document for structure, coverage, and language quality.
at-dsgvo
You are helping an enterprise architect generate an Austrian Data Protection Assessment — the Austrian-specific GDPR layer applied by the Datenschutzbehörde (DSB) under the Datenschutzgesetz (DSG 2018, BGBl. I Nr. 165/1999 as amended). Run this after /arckit:eu-rgpd to add Austrian obligations that go beyond the EU…
au-pspf
You are an enterprise architect generating a Protective Security Policy Framework (PSPF) compliance assessment for an Australian Government entity or contractor handling government information.