formated-results
Closing skill for the research-executor, loaded as the last step of formated-specs. Summarize the design just produced into one research-result JSON fenced…
Analyze competitor IP portfolios — comparative patent portfolio reports
$ npx -y skills add yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine --skill competitive-intelligence --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/competitive-intelligenceContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Analyze competitor IP portfolios — comparative patent portfolio reports
name: competitive-intelligence description: 'Analyze competitor IP portfolios — comparative patent portfolio reports with strategy inference. Budget: 120 patent families, 15 claim parses, 40 web searches.' execution: strategy dependencies: tactics: - classification-navigation - knowledge-acquisition-claim-decomposition - patent-family-tracing sops: - assignee-normalization - citation-network-analysis - claim-parsing - knowledge-acquisition-saturation-detection - legal-status-assessment - patent-categorization - patent-query-formulation - patent-synthesis - quality-scoring - trend-analysis
Analyzes competitor patent portfolios to infer R&D strategy, identify strengths and weaknesses, and produce comparative intelligence reports.
Profile competitor IP portfolios to understand their technology focus, filing strategy, geographic coverage, and potential future directions. Enables strategic IP positioning.
| Metric | Target | |--------|--------| | Patent families analyzed | 120 | | Claim parses | 15 | | Web searches completed | 40 |
| Metric | Target | Current | % | |--------|--------|---------|---| | Patent families analyzed | 120 | 0 | 0% | | Claim parses completed | 15 | 0 | 0% | | Web searches completed | 40 | 0 | 0% | | Competitors profiled | — | 0 | — | | Portfolio comparisons | — | 0 | — |
**HARD-GATE**: Cannot exit iteration loop until 80% of patent families (96), claim parses (12), and web searches (32) budget met.
| Tactic | When to Use | |--------|-------------| | patent-family-tracing | Build complete portfolio for each competitor | | classification-navigation | Map competitor technology focus areas | | claim-decomposition | Analyze claim scope of competitor key patents |
| SOP | Role in This Strategy | |-----|----------------------| | patent-query-formulation | Generate assignee-focused search queries | | assignee-normalization | Resolve subsidiary/parent relationships | | patent-categorization | Classify competitor patents by technology area | | citation-network-analysis | Map inter-competitor citation relationships | | trend-analysis | Analyze competitor filing velocity and direction | | claim-parsing | Parse key competitor claims for scope analysis | | quality-scoring | Assess competitor patent quality distribution | | legal-status-assessment | Determine active vs. expired competitor IP | | saturation-detection | Confirm portfolio coverage is complete | | patent-synthesis | Produce competitive intelligence report |
1. **Competitor identification** — Identify target competitors from user input or landscape data 2. **Assignee normalization** — Resolve all name variants and subsidiaries with `assignee-normalization` 3. **Portfolio collection** — Search for all patents per competitor using `patent-query-formulation` 4. **Family tracing** — Complete portfolio with `patent-family-tracing` 5. **Categorization** — Classify each competitor's patents by technology with `patent-categorization` 6. **Trend analysis** — Analyze filing patterns per competitor with `trend-analysis` 7. **Citation analysis** — Map cross-citation between competitors with `citation-network-analysis` 8. **Key claim analysis** — Parse top patents per competitor with `claim-parsing` 9. **Quality assessment** — Score portfolios with `quality-scoring` 10. **Synthesis** — Produce comparative report with `patent-synthesis`
# Competitive Patent Intelligence: [Technology Domain] ## Competitor Profiles ### [Competitor A] - Portfolio size: [N] families - Technology focus: [top IPC classes] - Filing trend: [increasing/stable/declining] - Geographic coverage: [jurisdictions] - Key patents: [top 3 by quality score] ## Comparative Analysis | Metric | Comp A | Comp B | Comp C | |--------|--------|--------|--------| | Total families | | | | | Filing velocity (last 3yr) | | | | | Avg quality score | | | | | Geographic breadth | | | | ## Citation Network [Inter-competitor citation patterns and influence] ## Strategic Inferences [R&D direction, potential acquisitions, licensing opportunities] ## Recommendations [Positioning strategy relative to competitors]
<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic | When to use | | --- | --- | | classification-navigation | IPC/CPC hierarchy drill-down and lateral expansion for patent discovery | | knowledge-acquisition-claim-decomposition | Independent/dependent claim parsing, element extraction, and feature mapping to technical domains | | patent-family-tracing | Forward/backward patent citation and priority tracing until saturation |
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP | When to use | | --- | --- | | assignee-normalization | Standardize assignee names and identify corporate group affiliations across patent offices | | citation-network-analysis | Build and analyze patent citation networks — main path analysis, PageRank, cluster detection | | claim-parsing | Patent claim syntax parsing — independent/dependent relationships and element extraction | | knowledge-acquisition-saturation-detection | Determine when additional searching yields diminishing returns. Analyzes the latest expansion batch against existing corpus to judge continue/near-saturation/saturated. Used by snowball and systematic-survey. | | legal-status-assessment | Determine patent legal status — active, expired, pending, lapsed, or revoked | | patent-categorization | Classify patents by tech subdomain, application scenario, and value chain position | | patent-query-formulation | Construct keyword + IPC/CPC + assignee combination search strategies for patent databases | | patent-synthesis | Produce final structured patent intelligence report from all analysis results | | quality-s
The complete research orchestration system for AI-native science. What It Does Design Philosophy Architecture (v3.2.2) Quick Start Configuration Roadmap License DARE is not a tool that helps you do research. It is the researcher.
Repo: yogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine
Closing skill for the research-executor, loaded as the last step of formated-specs. Summarize the design just produced into one research-result JSON fenced…
Spec-slot skill for the research-executor. Emit the 4-layer DARE orchestration of the assigned topic as one research-graph JSON fenced block in your reply.…
Loss-1 judge (codex role). Given one sample's de-identified dialogue and its PolicyCard, decide axis-by-axis whether the user-simulator enacted the card's…
Loss-2 judge (codex role). Over one topic's 6 shuffled research-design samples, pairwise-rank by quality using the D1–D5 standard. Emit the pairwise log; the…
The optimizer brain for the ladder-foundry pretraining loop. Runs the two-level nested batch loop, delegates gating to gate_eval, attributes a failing batch to…
Tactic: Extract atomic units from one paper and score how much of a caller-supplied summary covers. Use for ACU-style binary or Nugget-style ternary recall…