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.
npx skills add AutoConference/AutoConference-skill --skill claims-draftinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AutoConference/AutoConference-skillWrote 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/skills/autoconference/autoconference-skill/claims-drafting)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/autoconference/autoconference-skill/claims-drafting"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/autoconference/autoconference-skill/claims-drafting/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/skills/autoconference/autoconference-skill/claims-drafting"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/autoconference/autoconference-skill/claims-drafting.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 | $0.00053 | $0.02530 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.01012 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00506 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00253 |
Grade A, and why
claims-drafting 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 3d 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 claims-drafting — 4 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 — 228 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Claims Drafting: The Core Patent Skill
Draft patent claims based on: $ARGUMENTS
This is the most critical skill in the patent pipeline. Claims define the legal scope of protection -- everything else (specification, figures, abstract) exists to support and enable the claims.
Constants
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.6-sol— External examiner for claim quality reviewMAX_CLAIM_REVISION_ROUNDS = 3— Maximum revision iterationsCLAIM_STYLE = "auto"—US(Jepson or open),EP(two-part mandatory),CN(two-part),auto(detect from jurisdiction)MIN_INDEPENDENT_CLAIMS = 2— Typically method + system. For utility model (实用新型): apparatus/device only, NO method claims.MAX_TOTAL_CLAIMS = 20— Practical limit (USPTO includes 20 in base fee)PATENT_TYPE = "invention"—invention(发明专利) orutility_model(实用新型, apparatus claims only)
Inputs
patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md— structured invention with core/supporting/optional featurespatent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md— prior art to avoidpatent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md— novelty analysis with suggested amendments- Target jurisdiction from invention disclosure or
$ARGUMENTS
Shared References
Load ../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md for claim drafting principles, antecedent basis rules, and common pitfalls.
Load ../shared-references/patent-format-cn.md for CN claim format (其特征在于).
Load ../shared-references/patent-format-us.md for US claim format (comprising, means-plus-function).
Load ../shared-references/patent-format-ep.md for EP two-part form (characterised in that).
Workflow
Step 1: Determine Claim Style and Patent Type
Based on patent type and jurisdiction:
If PATENT_TYPE = utility_model (实用新型):
- CN jurisdiction ONLY
- Apparatus/device claims ONLY — no method, no product-by-process
MIN_INDEPENDENT_CLAIMS = 1(single apparatus claim is sufficient)- Claim format: "1. 一种[主题]，其特征在于，包括：[组件描述]。"
Based on target jurisdiction:
| Jurisdiction | Claim Style | Characterising Phrase | Preamble Format |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN | Two-part (两部式) | 其特征在于 | 一种...的方法/装置，包括： |
| US | Open (preferred) | comprising | A method for..., comprising: |
| EP | Two-part (mandatory) | characterised in that | A method for..., comprising [known], characterised in that [inventive] |
| ALL | Draft CN + US + EP | All of the above | All of the above |
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 228 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 701d3111d876
claims-drafting is a skill published in the GitHub repository AutoConference/AutoConference-skill (6 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 2,530 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to claims-drafting, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
fto-triage
Freedom-to-operate triage — a structured first look at potentially blocking patents, not an FTO opinion. Use when a product, process, or feature is being evaluated for blocking patents, when asked whether anything stops a launch, or to build a claim-chart first pass against the most plausible patents before patent…
dpa-review
Review a Data Processing Agreement against your DPA playbook — auto-detects whether you're processor or controller and applies the right half of the playbook. Use when the user says "review this DPA", "check this data processing addendum", "customer sent their DPA", "is this DPA okay", or attaches a DPA.
legal-hold
Issue, refresh, release, or report on legal holds — drafts the hold notice as .docx, updates legalhold fields in log.yaml, and calendars the next refresh. Use when the user says "issue a hold", "refresh hold", "release hold", or asks for a portfolio-wide hold status report.
exam-forecast
Analyze past exams from the same professor to surface patterns — subject weighting, recurring issue-spot traps, favored hypo types, policy-vs-doctrine mix — and forecast likely emphases for the upcoming exam. Use when the user says "what's on the exam", "analyze past exams", "predict the exam", or shares past exams.
specification-writing
A workflow for writing complete patent specifications from patent claims and an invention disclosure. It adapts the document to a chosen jurisdiction, such as the US, Europe, or China.
regulatory-research-fallback
Fallback workflow for regulatory research when web extraction tools fail on government PDFs.