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 raja21068/AutoResearch --skill patent-novelty-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/raja21068/AutoResearchWrote 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/raja21068/autoresearch/patent-novelty-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/raja21068/autoresearch/patent-novelty-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/raja21068/autoresearch/patent-novelty-check/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/raja21068/autoresearch/patent-novelty-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/raja21068/autoresearch/patent-novelty-check.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 | $0.00059 | $0.01380 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00690 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00276 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00138 |
Grade A, and why
patent-novelty-check 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
97% identical to patent-novelty-check — 9 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 — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Patent Novelty and Non-Obviousness Check
Assess patentability of: $ARGUMENTS
Adapted from /novelty-check for patent legal standards. Research novelty is NOT the same as patent novelty.
Constants
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.4— Model used via Codex MCP for cross-model examiner verificationNOVELTY_STANDARD = patent— Always use legal patentability standard, not research contribution standard
Inputs
- Invention description from
$ARGUMENTS patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md(output of/prior-art-search)patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.mdif exists
Shared References
Load ../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md for novelty/non-obviousness standards.
Load ../shared-references/patent-format-us.md for 102/103 analysis framework.
Workflow
Step 1: Define Claim Elements
From the invention description, extract the key claim elements that would define the invention's scope:
- List the technical features that make the invention novel
- Identify which features are known from prior art vs. inventive
- Draft preliminary claim language for 2-3 independent claims (method + system)
Step 2: Anticipation Analysis (Novelty)
For each preliminary claim, test against EACH prior art reference in PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md:
Single-reference test: Does any single reference disclose ALL claim elements?
| Claim Element | Ref 1 | Ref 2 | Ref 3 | ... |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature A | Yes/No + evidence | |||
| Feature B | Yes/No + evidence | |||
| Feature C | Yes/No + evidence | |||
| Feature D | Yes/No + evidence |
Verdict per reference:
- ANTICIPATED: One reference discloses every element → claim is not novel
- NOT ANTICIPATED: At least one element missing from every single reference → claim is novel
Step 3: Obviousness Analysis (Inventive Step)
If the invention is novel (passes Step 2), test for obviousness:
Two/three-reference combination test: Can 2-3 references be combined to render the claim obvious?
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 · 153 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 583f0a52125d
patent-novelty-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository raja21068/AutoResearch (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 1,380 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to patent-novelty-check, differing in 9 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
literature-review-agent
Step 3 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Execute the literature search strategy from outline.json — discover candidate papers via web search, verify them through Semantic Scholar (Levenshtein > 70 fuzzy title match, temporal cutoff, dedup by paperId), cross-corroborate against Crossref + OpenAlex to…
agent-research-aggregator
Pre-pipeline aggregator that scans AI agent cache directories (.claude, .cursor, .antigravity, .openclaw) or any user-specified directory for experimentation logs, extracts insights and numeric results, and formats them as PaperOrchestra-ready inputs (idea.md + experimentallog.md). TRIGGER when the user says…
content-refinement-agent
Step 5 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Iteratively refine drafts/paper.tex by simulating peer review and applying targeted revisions, with strict accept/revert halt rules, deterministic 0-100 decision bands (Accept/Minor/Major/Reject) that drive a target-met early stop, and a Devil's Advocate…
paper-orchestra
Orchestrate the full PaperOrchestra (Song et al., 2026, arXiv:2604.05018) five-agent pipeline to turn unstructured research materials (idea, experimental log, LaTeX template, conference guidelines, optional figures) into a submission-ready LaTeX manuscript and compiled PDF. TRIGGER when the user asks to "write a paper…
section-writing-agent
Step 4 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). ONE single multimodal LLM call that drafts the remaining paper sections (Abstract, Methodology, Experiments, Conclusion), extracts numeric values from experimentallog.md into LaTeX booktabs tables, splices the generated figures from Step 2, and merges…
plotting-agent
Step 2 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Execute the visualization plan from outline.json — render plots and conceptual diagrams from experimentallog.md and idea.md, optionally refine via VLM critique loop, and produce context-aware captions. Runs in parallel with the literature-review-agent. TRIGGER…