Evidence-backed comparison of two or more technical routes, architectures, or solution paths. Use when the user asks for technical pre-research, technical route comparison, route selection, TRL assessment, maturity assessment, readiness evaluation, opportunity mapping, or any management-grade technical report deliverable — even if they only ask for initiation analysis, committee-ready materials, feasibility, or "which route is better".
Evidence-backed comparison of two or more technical routes, architectures, or solution paths. Use when the user asks for technical pre-research, technical route comparison, route selection, TRL assessment, maturity assessment, readiness evaluation, opportunity mapping, or any management-grade technical report deliverable — even if they only ask for initiation analysis, committee-ready materials, feasibility, or "which route is better".
argument-hint
[topic + route set + optional scenario/purpose]
provider
Patsnap Eureka
compatibility
Designed for Claude Code, Codex, and similar agent runtimes that can read/write local files and call whatever search tools are available.
deliverable-default
Structured Markdown comparison report plus traceable evidence files; docx/pdf export is optional.
fallback-policy
Prefer structured patent/paper retrieval when available; otherwise downgrade through domain-specific sources, Exa, Tavily, Brave, web, and a known-URL reader without blocking the run.
Tech Route Comparison
Provided by Patsnap Eureka.
Use this skill when the decision object is a route set rather than a company,
a market arena, or a concrete proposal package. The goal is to compare routes
on evidence, normalize the comparison basis, and end with a recommendation the
user can act on.
Use When
The user asks which technical route is better, more mature, or lower risk
Route comparison across two or more technical approaches
Maturity, readiness, feasibility, or TRL evaluation
Scenario-specific route recommendation (e.g., "which route for EV use?")
Opportunity map or white-space scan across routes
Management-ready technical pre-research report
Do Not Use
The real question is one company in one topic → route to company-tech-profile
The real question is a multi-player arena or player map → route to
competitive-landscape
The real question is a concrete proposal or initiation package → route to
rd-initiation-review
The task is pure market sizing or commercial comparison with no technical core
Legal patent opinion, FTO, or infringement analysis
known_routes: user-provided or discovered route set
time_window: default last 3-5 years
Comparison Basis Must Be Explicit
Before ranking routes, write down:
What routes are being compared (frozen definitions)
What dimensions are used for comparison (performance, cost, maturity,
risk, scalability, etc.)
What normalization rules apply (same application scenario, same
comparison level, same time window)
Do not compare shifting route buckets. Do not mix material-level evidence
with system-level evidence as if they were the same layer.
TRL And Maturity Require Explicit Rubric
Do not write TRL labels, readiness levels, or maturity claims without an
explicit rubric that defines what each level means in the current context.
A route with many weak signals is still weak — do not confuse volume with
confidence.
Counterevidence Is Required
For every route recommendation, actively search for and document:
Evidence that contradicts the recommendation
Conditions under which the recommendation would change
Update triggers that should prompt re-evaluation
Tool Routing And Fallback
This skill works across multiple tool environments. Before retrieval, detect
which capabilities are available and select the highest tier that is reachable.
