invention-structuring

Structure a raw invention idea into a formal invention disclosure. Use when user says "构建发明", "structure invention", "发明构建", "invention disclosure", or wants to formalize a rough idea into a patent-ready structure.

Jump to install

Repository: ThomasMoreAI/legal-skills-open
Last source activity: June 1, 2026 at 17:27
Detected SKILL.md language: English
Stars: 40
Forks: 4

Install options

The review-first prompt is selected by default. You can switch to a direct command or download a local copy.

Review the source files

Read SKILL.md and any companion files shown by SkillsMP before deciding whether to install.

Back to search Back to installation

name	invention-structuring
title	Invention Structuring
description	Structure a raw invention idea into a formal invention disclosure. Use when user says "构建发明", "structure invention", "发明构建", "invention disclosure", or wants to formalize a rough idea into a patent-ready structure.
author	wanshuiyin
author_url	https://github.com/wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep/tree/main/skills/skills-codex/invention-structuring
license	MIT
version	0.1.0
execution_mode	open
jurisdiction	general
practice	ip
language	en

Invention Structuring

Structure the invention into a formal disclosure based on: $ARGUMENTS

Adapted from the refinement pattern in /research-refine for patent invention decomposition.

Constants

REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.5 — External reviewer for invention decomposition validation
MAX_REFINEMENT_ROUNDS = 3 — Maximum structuring iterations

Inputs

Invention description from $ARGUMENTS
patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md if exists
patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md — prior art landscape
patent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md — novelty analysis

Shared References

Load ../shared-references/patent-writing-principles.md for the Problem-Solution-Advantage framework and claimable subject matter guidelines.

Workflow

Step 1: Problem-Solution-Advantage Framework

Structure the invention using the universal patent framework:

Technical Problem (要解决的技术问题):

Derived from prior art deficiencies identified in NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md
Must be a specific, technical problem (not a commercial or social problem)
Statement format: "The technical problem to be solved is how to [specific technical objective] given [specific technical constraint]."

Technical Solution (技术方案):

The invention's specific technical contribution
Focus on the mechanism, not the result
Must be described at a level that matches the intended claim scope
Identify which features are known vs. inventive

Advantages (有益效果):

Measurable or quantifiable improvements over prior art
Must result from the inventive features, not just good engineering
Include specific technical effects if known (e.g., "reduces processing time by 40%")

Step 2: Invention Decomposition

Break the invention into three layers:

Core Inventive Concept (核心发明构思):

The minimal set of features that make the invention patentable
This maps to the independent claim scope
Test: if you remove this feature, the invention is no longer novel

Supporting Features (支撑性特征):

Features that make the invention work well in practice

Category	Applicability	Content
Method/process	If invention involves steps	Process flow, algorithm, workflow
System/apparatus	If invention involves components	Hardware structure, modules, connections
Product	If invention is a physical device	Shape, structure, composition
Computer-readable medium	If software invention (US)	Stored instructions, non-transitory medium
Product-by-process	If structure is hard to define	Product defined by how it is made

Figure	Type	Shows	Supports Claim Elements
FIG. 1	Block diagram	System architecture	System claim components
FIG. 2	Flowchart	Method steps	Method claim steps
FIG. 3	Sequence diagram	Interaction between components	Specific implementation details

Independent Claim 1 (method, broadest scope)
├── Core inventive feature A
├── Core inventive feature B
└── Known feature C (for context)

Dependent Claim 2 → narrows feature A with specific implementation
Dependent Claim 3 → narrows feature B with specific parameters
Dependent Claim 4 → depends on 2, adds optional feature D
Dependent Claim 5 → alternative implementation of feature A

spawn_agent:
  model: gpt-5.5
  reasoning_effort: xhigh
  message: |
    You are a patent attorney reviewing an invention disclosure.
    Evaluate the structuring choices:

    INVENTION: [Problem-Solution-Advantage summary]
    DECOMPOSITION: [Core/Supporting/Optional features]
    CLAIM PLAN: [intended claim categories and hierarchy]

    Please assess:
    1. Is the Problem-Solution-Advantage framework correctly applied?
    2. Is the core inventive concept correctly identified? Are there features that should be core but are listed as supporting (or vice versa)?
    3. Are the planned claim categories sufficient to protect the invention?
    4. Is the drawing plan adequate for enablement?
    5. Are there any claimable aspects being missed?

## Invention Disclosure

### Title
[invention title]

### Technical Problem
[formal problem statement]

### Technical Solution
[formal solution description]

### Advantages
[measurable advantages]

### Feature Decomposition

#### Core Inventive Concept
[features that define independent claim scope]

#### Supporting Features
[features for dependent claims]

#### Optional Features
[features for embodiments]

### Claimable Subject Matter
[method, system, product, medium claims planned]

### Drawing Plan
[figures needed, what each shows]

### Dependency Map
[claim hierarchy plan]

### Inventor Information
[names, contributions]

### Target Jurisdiction
[CN/US/EP/ALL]