@research-copilot/plugin 1.1.17 → 1.1.19

package/dist/skills/patent-novelty-check/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
+---
+name: patent-novelty-check
+description: "Assess patent novelty and non-obviousness against prior art. Use when user says \"专利查新\", \"patent novelty\", \"可专利性评估\", \"patentability check\", or wants to evaluate if an invention is patentable."
+argument-hint: [invention-description-or-brief-path]
+allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch
+---
+
+# Patent Novelty and Non-Obviousness Check
+
+Assess patentability of: **$ARGUMENTS**
+
+Adapted from `/novelty-check` for patent legal standards. Research novelty is NOT the same as patent novelty.
+
+## Constants
+
+- `REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.5` — Model used via Codex MCP for cross-model examiner verification
+- `NOVELTY_STANDARD = patent` — Always use legal patentability standard, not research contribution standard
+
+## Inputs
+
+1. Invention description from `$ARGUMENTS`
+2. `patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md` (output of `/prior-art-search`)
+3. `patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md` if 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:
+1. List the technical features that make the invention novel
+2. Identify which features are known from prior art vs. inventive
+3. 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?
+
+For each combination of the top references:
+1. **Primary reference**: Which reference is closest to the claimed invention?
+2. **Secondary reference(s)**: Which reference(s) teach the missing element(s)?
+3. **Motivation to combine**: Would a POSITA have reason to combine these references?
+   - Explicit suggestion in the references themselves?
+   - Same field, same problem?
+   - Common design incentive?
+   - Known technique for improving similar devices?
+
+Format as a matrix:
+
+| Combination | Primary | Secondary | Missing Elements | Motivation to Combine | Obvious? |
+|-------------|---------|-----------|-----------------|----------------------|----------|
+| Ref1 + Ref2 | Ref1 | Ref2 | Feature D | Same field, similar problem | Yes/No |
+
+### Step 4: Cross-Model Examiner Verification
+
+Call `REVIEWER_MODEL` via a dedicated Codex reviewer agent at xhigh reasoning:
+
+```text
+spawn_agent:
+  model: gpt-5.5
+  reasoning_effort: xhigh
+  message: |
+    You are a senior patent examiner at the [USPTO/CNIPA/EPO].
+    Examine the following invention for patentability.
+
+    INVENTION: [invention description + preliminary claims]
+
+    PRIOR ART: [prior art references with key teachings]
+
+    Please analyze:
+    1. Anticipation (novelty): Does any single reference anticipate any claim?
+    2. Obviousness: Can any combination of references render claims obvious?
+    3. Claim scope: Are the claims broad enough to be valuable?
+    4. Recommended amendments if any claim is rejected.
+    Be rigorous and cite specific references.
+```
+
+### Step 5: Jurisdiction-Specific Assessment
+
+For each target jurisdiction, provide a patentability assessment:
+
+**Under 35 USC 102/103 (US)**:
+- Novelty: PASS / FAIL (cite specific reference if fail)
+- Non-obviousness: PASS / FAIL (cite combination if fail)
+
+**Under Article 22 CN Patent Law (CN)**:
+- 新颖性 (Novelty): 通过 / 未通过
+- 创造性 (Inventive Step): 通过 / 未通过
+
+**Under Article 54/56 EPC (EP)**:
+- Novelty: PASS / FAIL
+- Inventive step: PASS / FAIL (problem-solution approach)
+
+### Step 6: Output
+
+Write `patent/NOVELTY_ASSESSMENT.md`:
+
+```markdown
+## Patentability Assessment
+
+### Invention Summary
+[description]
+
+### Overall Assessment
+[PATENTABLE / PATENTABLE WITH AMENDMENTS / NOT PATENTABLE]
+
+### Anticipation Analysis
+[claim-by-claim matrix against each reference]
+
+### Obviousness Analysis
+[combination analysis with motivation to combine]
+
+### Cross-Model Examiner Review
+[summary of GPT-5.5 examiner feedback]
+
+### Recommended Claim Amendments
+[If claims need modification to overcome prior art, suggest specific amendments]
+
+### Risk Factors
+[What could cause rejection during actual prosecution?]
+```
+
+## Key Rules
+
+- Patent novelty is absolute: any public disclosure before the priority date counts as prior art, worldwide.
+- Research novelty ("has anyone published this?") is NOT the same as patent novelty ("does any single reference teach every claim element?").
+- Obviousness requires BOTH: (1) a combination of references AND (2) a motivation to combine them.
+- Never assume the invention is patentable just because no identical patent exists.
+- The assessment is advisory only -- actual prosecution may reveal different prior art.
+- If reviewer delegation is unavailable in the current Codex host, stop and ask the user to enable Codex agent support before continuing.

package/dist/skills/patent-pipeline/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,344 @@
+---
+name: patent-pipeline
+description: "Full patent drafting pipeline from invention description to jurisdiction-formatted filing documents. Supports CN (CNIPA), US (USPTO), EP (EPO). Supports invention patents and utility models. Use when user says \"写专利\", \"patent pipeline\", \"专利申请\", \"draft patent\", \"写权利要求书\", or wants to draft a complete patent application."
+argument-hint: [invention-description — jurisdiction]
+allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, Skill
+---
+
+# Patent Pipeline: From Invention to Filing
+
+Draft a complete patent application based on: **$ARGUMENTS**
+
+## Overview
+
+This skill orchestrates the full patent drafting lifecycle -- from prior art search through jurisdiction-formatted filing documents. It chains sub-skills into a patent-specific pipeline:
+
+```
+/prior-art-search → /patent-novelty-check → /invention-structuring → /claims-drafting → /specification-writing → /patent-review → /jurisdiction-format
+     (search)           (verify)              (structure)             (claims)            (description)          (examiner)         (compile)
+                                                                                              ├── /figure-description
+                                                                                              └── /embodiment-description
+```
+
+**This is a parallel branch, not part of the linear research pipeline.** After `/idea-discovery` produces validated ideas, the user can either:
+- Go to `/experiment-bridge` → `/auto-review-loop` → `/paper-writing` (publish track)
+- Go to `/grant-proposal` (funding track)
+- Go to `/patent-pipeline` (patent track) **<-- this skill**
+
+```
+                    ┌→ /experiment-bridge → /auto-review-loop → /paper-writing  (publish track)
+/idea-discovery ────┤
+                    ├→ /grant-proposal → [get funded] → ...  (funding track)
+                    └→ /patent-pipeline → [file patent]       (patent track)
+```
+
+Patents are about **protecting inventions** (legal scope), not publishing results (academic contribution). This skill handles the unique requirements of patent drafting: prior art analysis, claims hierarchy design, specification writing with enablement support, embodiment descriptions, and jurisdiction-specific formatting.
+
+## Constants
+
+- **JURISDICTION = `CN`** — Target patent jurisdiction. Options: `CN` (CNIPA), `US` (USPTO), `EP` (EPO), `ALL` (generate all three). Override via argument (e.g., `/patent-pipeline "invention — US"`).
+- **PATENT_TYPE = `invention`** — `invention` (发明专利, 20 year protection) or `utility_model` (实用新型, CN only, 10 year protection, apparatus claims only). Override via argument.
+- **REVIEWER_MODEL = `gpt-5.5`** — Model used via Codex MCP for examiner-style review.
+- **MAX_REVIEW_ROUNDS = 2** — Maximum review-revision cycles.
+- **AUTO_PROCEED = false** — At each checkpoint, **always wait for explicit user confirmation**. Patent applications require inventor judgment at every stage. Set `true` only if user explicitly requests autonomous mode.
+- **LANGUAGE = `auto`** — Output language. Auto-detected from jurisdiction: CN->Chinese, US->English, EP->English. Override explicitly if needed.
+- **OUTPUT_DIR = `patent/`** — Directory for generated patent files.
+- **OUTPUT_FORMAT = `markdown`** — Draft format. `markdown` for review, `docx` for filing-ready.
+
+> Override defaults via arguments: `/patent-pipeline "invention — US, utility model"` or `/patent-pipeline "invention — ALL, language: Chinese"`.
+
+## Patent Type Specifications
+
+### Invention Patent (发明专利)
+
+| Field | Detail |
+|-------|--------|
+| **Protection** | 20 years from filing date |
+| **Subject matter** | Methods, systems, products, compositions, processes |
+| **Examination** | Substantive examination required |
+| **Inventive step** | High (must involve an inventive step / 创造性) |
+| **Timeline** | 2-4 years to grant (CN); 2-3 years (US); 3-5 years (EP) |
+| **Claims** | Method + system + product claims allowed |
+
+### Utility Model (实用新型) — CN Only
+
+| Field | Detail |
+|-------|--------|
+| **Protection** | 10 years from filing date |
+| **Subject matter** | Product shape, structure, or combination thereof only |
+| **Examination** | Formal examination only (no substantive examination) |
+| **Inventive step** | Lower than invention patent |
+| **Timeline** | 6-8 months to grant |
+| **Claims** | Apparatus/device claims only. NO method claims. |
+| **Restriction** | CN jurisdiction only |
+
+## State Persistence (Compact Recovery)
+
+Patent drafting is a long task that may trigger context compaction. Persist state to `patent/PATENT_STATE.json` after each phase:
+
+```json
+{
+  "phase": 3,
+  "jurisdiction": "CN",
+  "patent_type": "invention",
+  "language": "Chinese",
+  "codex_thread_id": "019cfcf4-...",
+  "invention_title": "...",
+  "claims_count": 15,
+  "status": "in_progress",
+  "timestamp": "2026-04-10T15:00:00"
+}
+```
+
+**Write this file at the end of every phase.** On invocation, check for this file:
+- If absent or `status: "completed"` -> fresh start
+- If `status: "in_progress"` and within 24h -> **resume** from saved phase (read output files to restore context)
+- If older than 24h -> fresh start (stale state)
+
+On completion, set `"status": "completed"`.
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Phase 0: Input Parsing & Context Gathering
+
+Parse `$ARGUMENTS` to extract:
+
+1. **Invention description** — may be structured (references INVENTION_BRIEF.md), conversational with figures, or output from IDEA_REPORT.md
+2. **Jurisdiction** — detect from keywords (e.g., "CN" or "中国" -> CN, "US" or "USPTO" -> US, "EP" or "EPO" -> EP, "ALL")
+3. **Patent type** — detect from keywords (e.g., "utility model" or "实用新型" -> utility_model, default -> invention)
+4. **Overrides** — language, output format, review rounds
+
+Then gather context from the project directory:
+
+1. Read `INVENTION_BRIEF.md` if it exists (user filled in the template)
+2. Read `IDEA_REPORT.md` if it exists (from `/idea-discovery` -- can extract invention from research results)
+3. Read `refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md` if it exists
+4. Read `NARRATIVE_REPORT.md` if it exists (research results that may be patentable)
+5. Search for user-provided figures (PNG, JPG, SVG, PDF) in the project directory
+6. Check for `patent/PATENT_STATE.json` (resume from prior interrupted run)
+
+If insufficient context exists:
+- No invention description at all -> suggest user describe the invention or fill in `INVENTION_BRIEF.md`
+- Has IDEA_REPORT.md -> extract patentable aspects from the research
+- Has figures -> reference them in the invention brief
+- No figures -> note that figures will be needed and plan what drawings are required
+
+**If the input is conversational** (not a structured brief), parse the description into the invention brief structure and write `patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md` for downstream phases.
+
+### Phase 1: Prior Art Search & Novelty Assessment
+
+#### 1.1 Prior Art Search
+
+Invoke `/prior-art-search`:
+
+```
+/prior-art-search "patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md"
+```
+
+This searches patent databases (Google Patents, Espacenet) and academic literature for relevant prior art.
+
+#### 1.2 Novelty Check
+
+Invoke `/patent-novelty-check`:
+
+```
+/patent-novelty-check "patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md"
+```
+
+This assesses novelty and non-obviousness against the prior art found in step 1.1.
+
+**🚦 Checkpoint:** Present the prior art landscape and novelty assessment:
+
+```
+Prior art search complete:
+- [X] patent references found
+- [Y] non-patent literature references found
+- Closest prior art: [reference] -- [why it's closest]
+- Novelty assessment: [PATENTABLE / PATENTABLE WITH AMENDMENTS / NOT PATENTABLE]
+- Key risk areas: [list]
+
+Ready to proceed with invention structuring?
+```
+
+**⛔ STOP HERE and wait for user response.** Do NOT auto-proceed unless AUTO_PROCEED=true.
+
+Options:
+- Reply **"go"** -> proceed to Phase 2
+- Reply with **adjustments** -> refine the invention scope and re-check novelty
+- Reply **"stop"** -> save progress to `patent/DRAFT_NOTES.md`
+
+**State**: Write `PATENT_STATE.json` with `phase: 1`.
+
+### Phase 2: Invention Structuring & Claims Design
+
+#### 2.1 Structure the Invention
+
+Invoke `/invention-structuring`:
+
+```
+/invention-structuring "patent/INVENTION_BRIEF.md"
+```
+
+This decomposes the invention into core inventive concept, supporting features, and optional features. Produces `patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md`.
+
+#### 2.2 Draft Claims
+
+Invoke `/claims-drafting`:
+
+```
+/claims-drafting "patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md"
+```
+
+This drafts the claims hierarchy -- the most critical part of the patent. Produces `patent/CLAIMS.md`.
+
+**🚦 Checkpoint:** Present the invention structure and claims:
+
+```
+Invention structured:
+- Core inventive concept: [summary]
+- Claim categories: [method, system, etc.]
+- Claims drafted: [X] independent + [Y] dependent = [Z] total
+- Independent claim 1 (broadest): [first 50 words of claim 1]
+- Examiner review score: [X]/10
+
+The claims define the legal scope of protection. Please review before proceeding to specification.
+```
+
+**⛔ STOP HERE and wait for user response.** Do NOT auto-proceed unless AUTO_PROCEED=true.
+
+Options:
+- Reply **"go"** -> proceed to Phase 3
+- Reply with **adjustments** (e.g., "broaden claim 1", "add more dependent claims") -> revise claims
+- Reply **"stop"** -> save progress
+
+**State**: Write `PATENT_STATE.json` with `phase: 2`.
+
+### Phase 3: Specification Writing
+
+Invoke `/specification-writing`:
+
+```
+/specification-writing "patent/CLAIMS.md"
+```
+
+This writes the full specification section by section. Internally invokes `/figure-description` (if user-provided figures exist) and `/embodiment-description` for the detailed description. The specification-writing skill handles figure processing and embodiment writing as sub-skills.
+
+**🚦 Checkpoint:** Present the specification overview:
+
+```
+Specification written:
+- Title: [title]
+- Sections: Technical Field, Background, Summary, Drawings Description, Detailed Description, Abstract
+- Embodiments: [X]
+- Reference numerals: [Y] components mapped
+- Abstract length: [Z] words (limit: [jurisdiction limit])
+- Claim support: [all elements covered / X elements missing]
+
+Ready to proceed to review?
+```
+
+**⛔ STOP HERE and wait for user response.**
+
+**State**: Write `PATENT_STATE.json` with `phase: 3`.
+
+### Phase 4: Patent Review
+
+Invoke `/patent-review`:
+
+```
+/patent-review "patent/"
+```
+
+This runs 2 rounds of examiner-style review via GPT-5.5 xhigh. The examiner evaluates clarity, written description, enablement, novelty, non-obviousness, and claim scope.
+
+**State**: Write `PATENT_STATE.json` with `phase: 4` and review score.
+
+### Phase 5: Jurisdiction Formatting & Output
+
+Invoke `/jurisdiction-format`:
+
+```
+/jurisdiction-format "patent/"
+```
+
+This compiles the application into the target jurisdiction format(s).
+
+#### Final Deliverables
+
+| Output | Location | Description |
+|--------|----------|-------------|
+| CN: 权利要求书 | `patent/output/CN/` | Claims in CNIPA format |
+| CN: 说明书 | `patent/output/CN/` | Description in CNIPA format |
+| CN: 说明书摘要 | `patent/output/CN/` | Abstract (CN) |
+| US: Claims | `patent/output/US/` | Claims in USPTO format |
+| US: Specification | `patent/output/US/` | Description in USPTO format |
+| US: Abstract | `patent/output/US/` | Abstract (US) |
+| EP: Claims | `patent/output/EP/` | Claims in EPO format |
+| EP: Description | `patent/output/EP/` | Description in EPO format |
+| EP: Abstract | `patent/output/EP/` | Abstract (EP) |
+
+#### Final Report
+
+```markdown
+## Patent Pipeline Complete
+
+### Application Summary
+- Title: [invention title]
+- Jurisdiction: [CN/US/EP/ALL]
+- Patent Type: [Invention / Utility Model]
+- Language: [Chinese/English]
+- Total Claims: [X] independent + [Y] dependent
+
+### Pipeline Scores
+| Phase | Score |
+|-------|-------|
+| Prior Art Search | [completeness assessment] |
+| Novelty Assessment | [PATENTABLE/PATENTABLE WITH AMENDMENTS/NOT PATENTABLE] |
+| Examiner Review Round 1 | [X]/10 |
+| Examiner Review Round 2 | [Y]/10 |
+| Final | [Z]/10 |
+
+### Output Files
+[Table of all generated files with paths]
+
+### Next Steps
+- [ ] Have a patent attorney review the application
+- [ ] Conduct professional prior art search (this tool's search is preliminary)
+- [ ] Prepare formal drawings (if user figures need professional rendering)
+- [ ] File with the patent office
+- [ ] For utility model (CN): formal examination typically takes 6-8 months
+- [ ] For invention patent: substantive examination may take 2-4 years
+```
+
+**State**: Write `PATENT_STATE.json` with `phase: 5, status: "completed"`.
+
+## Key Rules
+
+- Never fabricate prior art references, patent numbers, or citations.
+- Claims must be supported by the specification (written description requirement).
+- Each jurisdiction has strict format requirements -- do not mix formats.
+- Utility model (实用新型) applies ONLY to CN jurisdiction and ONLY covers apparatus/device claims.
+- AUTO_PROCEED defaults to false -- patent applications require human review at every phase. Sub-skills inherit this flag: when AUTO_PROCEED=false, sub-skills present results and wait at their own internal checkpoints too.
+- The patent pipeline produces drafts for attorney review, not final filing documents.
+- Large file handling: if a Write operation fails, retry with Bash `cat <<'EOF'` heredoc.
+- Never include experimental results or empirical evaluations in the specification.
+- Consistent terminology is mandatory -- same word for the same concept throughout.
+- If a downstream reviewer step is requested but reviewer delegation is unavailable in the current Codex host, stop and ask the user to enable Codex agent support before continuing.
+
+## Composing with Other Workflows
+
+The patent pipeline can start from multiple entry points:
+
+```
+User describes invention directly ──→ /patent-pipeline
+
+/idea-discovery produces IDEA_REPORT.md ──→ /patent-pipeline (extract patentable aspects)
+
+/research-refine produces FINAL_PROPOSAL.md ──→ /patent-pipeline (from refined research idea)
+
+/auto-review-loop produces strong results ──→ /patent-pipeline (patent the method)
+```
+
+## Acknowledgements
+
+Built on the ARIS (Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep) skill architecture. Patent writing principles adapted from MPEP (US), CN Patent Examination Guidelines (CN), and EPO Guidelines for Examination (EP).

package/dist/skills/patent-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+---
+name: patent-review
+description: "Get an external patent examiner review of a patent application. Use when user says \"专利审查\", \"patent review\", \"审查意见\", \"examiner review\", or wants critical feedback on patent claims and specification."
+argument-hint: [patent-directory-or-scope]
+allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit
+---
+
+# Patent Examiner Review via Codex MCP (xhigh reasoning)
+
+Get a multi-round patent examiner review of the patent application based on: **$ARGUMENTS**
+
+Adapted from `/research-review`. The reviewer persona is a patent examiner, not a paper reviewer.
+
+## Constants
+
+- `REVIEWER_MODEL = gpt-5.5` — Model used via Codex MCP
+- `REVIEW_ROUNDS = 2` — Number of review rounds
+- `EXAMINER_PERSONA = "patent-examiner"` — GPT-5.5 persona
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- Codex MCP Server configured:
+  ```bash
+  claude mcp add codex -s user -- codex mcp-server
+  ```
+
+## Inputs
+
+1. `patent/CLAIMS.md` — all drafted claims
+2. `patent/specification/` — all specification sections
+3. `patent/figures/numeral_index.md` — reference numeral mapping
+4. `patent/PRIOR_ART_REPORT.md` — known prior art
+5. `patent/INVENTION_DISCLOSURE.md` — invention structure
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Step 1: Gather Patent Context
+
+Before calling the external reviewer, compile a comprehensive briefing:
+1. Read all claims (independent + dependent)
+2. Read specification sections (at least summary and detailed description)
+3. Read prior art report for context
+4. Identify: core inventive concept, claim scope, known prior art, target jurisdiction
+
+### Step 2: Round 1 — Full Examiner Review
+
+Send to `REVIEWER_MODEL` via `spawn_agent` with xhigh reasoning:
+
+```text
+spawn_agent:
+  model: gpt-5.5
+  reasoning_effort: xhigh
+  message: |
+    You are a senior patent examiner at the [USPTO/CNIPA/EPO].
+    Examine this patent application and issue a detailed office action.
+
+    CLAIMS:
+    [all claims]
+
+    SPECIFICATION SUMMARY:
+    [key sections: title, technical field, background, summary, abstract]
+
+    PRIOR ART KNOWN:
+    [prior art references]
+
+    PATENTABILITY STANDARDS TO APPLY:
+    [US: 35 USC 101/102/103/112 | CN: Articles 22, 26 | EP: Articles 54, 56, 83, 84]
+
+    Please issue an office action covering:
+
+    1. CLAIM CLARITY (112(b)/Art 84):
+       - Are all terms definite?
+       - Any indefinite functional language?
+       - Antecedent basis issues?
+
+    2. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION (112(a)/Art 83 first para):
+       - Does the spec support ALL claim scope?
+       - Any claim elements without spec support?
+
+    3. ENABLEMENT (112(a)/Art 83):
+       - Can a POSITA practice the invention?
+       - Any missing algorithm/structure for functional claims?
+
+    4. NOVELTY (102/Art 54):
+       - Would any known reference anticipate any claim?
+       - Identify the closest single reference.
+
+    5. NON-OBVIOUSNESS (103/Art 56):
+       - Would any combination render claims obvious?
+       - What is the motivation to combine?
+
+    6. CLAIM SCOPE:
+       - Are independent claims broad enough to be commercially valuable?
+       - Do dependent claims provide meaningful fallback positions?
+       - Any claims that are too broad (likely rejected) or too narrow (not valuable)?
+
+    7. SPECIFICATION QUALITY:
+       - Language issues (subjective terms, relative terms, result-to-be-achieved)
+       - Reference numeral consistency
+       - Missing embodiments
+
+    Format your response as a formal office action with:
+    - GROUNDS OF REJECTION for each issue (cite statute)
+    - SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS for each issue
+    - OVERALL PATENTABILITY SCORE: 1-10
+
+    Be rigorous and specific. This is a real examination.
+```
+
+### Step 3: Implement Fixes (Round 1)
+
+Based on the examiner's office action:
+
+1. **CRITICAL issues** (102 rejection, 112 indefiniteness, missing enablement):
+   - Must be fixed before proceeding
+   - Amend claims or add specification support
+
+2. **MAJOR issues** (103 obviousness, weak claim scope, missing support):
+   - Should be fixed or argued
+   - Consider claim amendments or specification additions
+
+3. **MINOR issues** (language quality, numeral consistency, formatting):
+   - Fix if time permits
+   - Document in output for later cleanup
+
+For each fix:
+- Show the specific change (old claim -> new claim)
+- Explain how the fix addresses the examiner's concern
+
+### Step 4: Round 2 — Follow-Up Review
+
+Use `send_input` with the saved reviewer id from Round 1:
+
+```text
+send_input:
+  target: [saved reviewer id from Round 1]
+  message: |
+    Here is the revised patent application after addressing your office action.
+
+    CHANGES MADE:
+    [list of all changes with rationale]
+
+    REVISED CLAIMS:
+    [updated claims]
+
+    REVISED SPECIFICATION EXCERPTS:
+    [changed sections]
+
+    Please re-examine:
+    1. Are the previous rejections overcome?
+    2. Are there new issues introduced by the amendments?
+    3. What is the updated patentability score?
+    4. Any remaining grounds for rejection?
+```
+
+### Step 5: Generate Improvement Report
+
+Write `patent/PATENT_REVIEW.md`:
+
+```markdown
+## Patent Review Report
+
+### Application Summary
+[Title, claims count, jurisdiction]
+
+### Review Round 1
+#### Office Action Summary
+[Key findings from examiner]
+
+#### Issues Found
+| # | Type | Severity | Claim/Section | Issue | Citation | Fix Applied |
+|---|------|----------|--------------|-------|----------|-------------|
+| 1 | Clarity | CRITICAL | Claim 3 | Indefinite term "rapid" | 112(b) | Defined in spec |
+| 2 | Novelty | MAJOR | Claim 1 | Ref X anticipates element C | 102 | Amended claim |
+
+#### Score After Round 1: [X]/10
+
+### Review Round 2
+#### Follow-Up Assessment
+[Are previous rejections overcome?]
+
+#### Remaining Issues
+[Any issues still outstanding]
+
+#### Score After Round 2: [X]/10
+
+### Recommendations
+[Final recommendations before proceeding to jurisdiction formatting]
+- [ ] All CRITICAL issues resolved
+- [ ] All MAJOR issues resolved or argued
+- [ ] Specification supports all claim amendments
+- [ ] Ready for jurisdiction formatting
+```
+
+## Key Rules
+
+- The reviewer persona must be a patent examiner, not a paper reviewer or academic.
+- Always use `model_reasoning_effort: "xhigh"` for maximum analysis depth.
+- Address CRITICAL and MAJOR issues before proceeding to the next phase.
+- Document all changes in the review report for traceability.
+- If the patentability score is below 5/10 after Round 2, recommend significant rework before filing.
+- The review is advisory -- actual prosecution may proceed differently.