specification-writing
Write the full patent specification from claims and invention disclosure
Install / Use
npx skills add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep --skill specification-writingInstalls into whichever agent you are using.
SKILL.md
Installable skill definition
Quality Score
Category
Content & MediaSupported Platforms
Our assessment of specification-writing
specification-writing scores 93/100 on our quality scale, 73rd of 464 Content & Media skills we index (top 16%).
Its SKILL.md is 8.0 KB long, well organised into 20 sections with 5 code examples: a thorough specification that gives an agent plenty to work with.
With 16,644 GitHub stars, it is one of the more widely adopted skills in the catalogue.
Maintenance, license and trust
- The repository was last updated 7 days ago, so specification-writing is actively maintained.
- It is released under the MIT license, a permissive license that allows use, modification and commercial use with attribution.
- Its trust signals score 100/100, with no cautions. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.
Safety scan
No issues foundOur scan of the whole file found no instruction hijacking, hidden characters, credential access, data exfiltration or destructive commands.
Automated pattern scan on 2026-09-26. It catches known dangerous patterns, not every risk — read a skill before letting an agent act on it.
specification-writing compared with similar skills
All 4 of these similar skills score higher than specification-writing; compare them before choosing.
| Skill | Score | Stars | Updated | Format |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| specification-writing (this skill)by wanshuiyin | 93 | 16.6k | 7d ago | SKILL.md |
| Agent-Reachby Panniantong | 100 | 85.5k | 11d ago | CLAUDE.md |
| headroomby headroomlabs-ai | 100 | 73.8k | today | CLAUDE.md |
| rufloby ruvnet | 100 | 73.3k | 1d ago | CLAUDE.md |
| CowAgentby zhayujie | 100 | 47.1k | today | CLAUDE.md |
Frequently asked questions
- How do I install specification-writing?
- Run
npx skills add wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep --skill specification-writing. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent. - Which AI agents does specification-writing work with?
- It is written for OpenAI Codex, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
- Is specification-writing safe to use?
- Our scan of the whole file found no instruction hijacking, hidden characters, credential access, data exfiltration or destructive commands. It is MIT-licensed and scores 100/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
- Is specification-writing still maintained?
- The repository was last updated 7 days ago, so specification-writing is actively maintained.
Skill content
View source on GitHubname: specification-writing description: "Write the full patent specification from claims and invention disclosure. Use when user says "撰写说明书", "write specification", "写说明书", "patent description", or wants to draft the complete patent specification." argument-hint: "[claims-path]" allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Skill, WebSearch, WebFetch, mcp__codex__codex, mcp__codex__codex-reply
Specification Writing: Section-by-Section Patent Description
Write the patent specification based on: $ARGUMENTS
Adapted from /paper-write for patent specifications. The specification supports the claims -- it is not a paper.
Constants
REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-6-astra— External reviewer for specification qualityJURISDICTION = "auto"— Inherit from pipeline or detect from args;CN,US,EP,ALLOUTPUT_FORMAT = "markdown"— Markdown drafts; converted to filing format by/jurisdiction-formatOUTPUT_DIR = "patent/"— Base output directoryLANGUAGE = "auto"— Auto from jurisdiction: CN->Chinese, US/EP->English
Inputs
patent/CLAIMS.md— the drafted claims (primary source)patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md— invention decompositionpatent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md— for background section- User-provided figures (if any)
Shared References
Load ../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md for specification writing rules, language guidelines, and reference numeral conventions.
Load ../shared-references/patent-format-cn.md or patent-format-us.md or patent-format-ep.md based on jurisdiction.
Workflow
Step 1: Initialize Specification Structure
Create the output directory and section files:
patent/specification/
├── title.md
├── technical_field.md
├── background.md
├── summary.md
├── drawings_description.md
├── detailed_description.md
└── abstract.md
Step 2: Write Title (发明名称)
- Must match the broadest claim scope
- No trademarks, no "improved" or "new" or "novel"
- CN format: "一种[领域]的[技术主题]" or "[领域]的[技术主题]装置"
- US/EP format: "[Technical topic] for [purpose]" or "[Technical topic] and method thereof"
- Keep concise (CN: typically under 25 characters; US: under 500 characters)
Step 3: Write Technical Field (技术领域)
1-2 paragraphs identifying the technical domain:
- "The present invention relates to [broad field], and more particularly to [specific area]."
- CN: "本发明涉及[技术领域],具体涉及[具体领域]。"
Step 4: Write Background (背景技术)
This is NOT a literature review. It directly sets up the problem.
Structure:
- Describe the closest prior art approaches (2-3 paragraphs)
- Identify specific technical deficiencies of each approach
- The deficiencies must be technical, not commercial or social
- DO NOT admit the prior art is "superior" or "better"
- DO NOT cite specific patent numbers unless they are known prior art (citations go in IDS for US, or Background section for CN)
CN format: "背景技术" section describing existing technology and its shortcomings.
Step 5: Write Summary (发明内容)
Three parts, directly mirroring INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md:
Technical Problem (要解决的技术问题):
- State the problem derived from background deficiencies
- CN: "本发明要解决的技术问题是..."
Technical Solution (技术方案):
- Describe how the invention solves the problem
- Must provide support for ALL claim elements
- Start from the broadest claim and describe the core inventive concept
- CN: "为解决上述技术问题,本发明采用的技术方案是:..."
- NO formulas, NO mathematical derivations, NO circuit models — these belong in 具体实施方式, not 发明内容
Advantages (有益效果):
- Benefits derived from the structural/technical features (qualitative reasoning)
- CN: "本发明的有益效果是:..."
- NO specific numerical results (e.g., "detection limit 70μm", "response time 105ms") — these are experimental findings, not invention properties
- Frame advantages structurally: "由于采用了...结构,因此具有...效果"
Step 6: Write Brief Description of Drawings (附图说明)
Invoke /figure-description as a sub-skill if user has provided figures:
/figure-description "patent/figures/"
If no user figures, describe what figures should exist based on the claims.
Format:
- CN: "图1是...的示意图;图2是...的流程图;"
- US: "FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing...; FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating..."
Step 7: Write Detailed Description (具体实施方式)
Invoke /embodiment-description as a sub-skill:
/embodiment-description "patent/CLAIMS.md"
This section must:
- Describe at least one complete embodiment with reference numerals
- Enable a POSITA to make and use the invention
- Support every claim element with explicit description
- Include variations and alternatives for broader claim interpretation
Step 8: Write Abstract (摘要)
Jurisdiction-specific word limits:
| Jurisdiction | Word Limit | Notes | |-------------|-----------|-------| | CN | 300 words (Chinese characters) | Include most representative claim reference | | US | 150 words (2500 characters) | Enable efficient searching, no legal phrases | | EP | ~150 words | No statements on merits or value |
The abstract summarizes:
- The technical field
- The problem being solved
- The technical solution (core features)
- Key advantages
Step 9: Claim Support Verification
Verify every claim element finds support in the specification:
| Claim | Element | Specification Section | Paragraph(s) | Reference Numeral | |-------|---------|----------------------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | step a | detailed_description | ¶3 | 202 | | 1 | step b | detailed_description | ¶4 | 204 | | X | component A | detailed_description | ¶2 | 102 |
If any element lacks support, add the necessary description before proceeding.
Step 10: Cross-Model Review
Call REVIEWER_MODEL via mcp__codex__codex with xhigh reasoning:
mcp__codex__codex:
model: gpt-6-astra
config: {"model_reasoning_effort": "xhigh"}
prompt: |
You are a patent examiner reviewing a specification for completeness.
CLAIMS: [all claims]
SPECIFICATION: [all specification sections]
Check for:
1. Written description support: Does every claim element have explicit or inherent support?
2. Enablement: Can a POSITA practice the invention from this specification?
3. Consistency: Do reference numerals match across figures and specification?
4. Language quality: Any subjective terms, relative terms without definition, or result-to-be-achieved language?
5. Missing embodiments: Are there claim features that need additional embodiments?
6. Background deficiencies: Are they technical and specific enough?
Step 11: Output
All specification sections are in patent/specification/.
Summary file: patent/specification/SPECIFICATION_INDEX.md with:
## Patent Specification
### Sections
| Section | File | Word Count | Status |
|---------|------|-----------|--------|
| Title | title.md | | Complete |
| Technical Field | technical_field.md | | Complete |
| Background | background.md | | Complete |
| Summary | summary.md | | Complete |
| Drawings Description | drawings_description.md | | Complete |
| Detailed Description | detailed_description.md | | Complete |
| Abstract | abstract.md | | Complete |
### Claim Support Status
| Claim | Elements Supported | Elements Missing |
|-------|-------------------|-----------------|
| 1 | All | None |
| X | All | None |
Key Rules
- The specification supports the claims, not the other way around. Every claim element must have support.
- Use consistent terminology -- same word for the same concept throughout.
- DO NOT include experimental results, accuracy metrics, or empirical evaluations.
- DO NOT use subjective language ("excellent", "surprising", "superior").
- Reference numerals must be consistent: same component, same numeral, everywhere.
- Background section describes specific deficiencies, not general "need for improvement."
- Multiple embodiments strengthen the specification but are not always required.
- Large file handling: if a Write operation fails, retry with Bash
cat <<'EOF'heredoc. - If
mcp__codex__codexis not available, skip cross-model review and note it in the output.
Related Skills
Agent-Reach
85.5kGive your AI agent eyes to see the entire internet. Read & search Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, GitHub, Bilibili, XiaoHongShu — one CLI, zero API fees.
headroom
73.8kCompress tool outputs, logs, files, and RAG chunks before they reach the LLM. 20% fewer tokens for coding agents, 60-95% fewer tokens for JSON, same answers. Library, proxy, MCP server.
ruflo
73.3k🌊 The original agent harness. Deploy intelligent multi-player swarms, coordinate autonomous workflows, and build conversational AI systems. Features adaptive memory, self-learning intelligence, federation, vector RAG integration, and native Claude Code / Codex / Hermes and many more Integrated
CowAgent
47.1kOpen-source super AI assistant & Agent Harness. Plans tasks, runs tools and skills, self-evolves with memory and knowledge. Multi-agent, multi-model, multi-channel. Lightweight, extensible, one-line install.
Languages
Trust signals
From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.
