One real run

What the output actually looks like

A complete run against the public walkthrough specification, captured on 2026-08-18 and printed here unedited. Ten claims drafted. The tool's own critique pass flagged all ten.

Read this before the claims

This is one run, on one model, against one small public specification. Re-running the same command produces different claims, because the drafter is a language model. What you can check is stated below: the input is a committed file, the command is printed, and the model is named and measured. The claims themselves are evidence of shape and character, not of quality.

Nothing here is filing-ready and none of it is a legal determination. The tool scores drafting quality against the specification you supply. It does not assess patentability, novelty or non-obviousness, and it is not a substitute for a licensed practitioner's judgment.

The input

The first claim of the parent, as filed, from the committed walkthrough fixture:

1. A temperature-actuated valve assembly comprising: a valve body defining an inlet port, an outlet port, and a central flow passage; a valve seat disposed within the central flow passage; a valve element movably positioned to selectively engage the valve seat; a shape-memory alloy spring coupled to the valve element, the shape-memory alloy spring having a transition temperature, wherein the shape-memory alloy spring has a first length below the transition temperature and a second length less than the first length above the transition temperature; and a bias spring urging the valve element toward an open position when the shape-memory alloy spring is below the transition temperature.

Run with a single command that supplies both the specification and the parent claims itself, so it needs no files of your own:

continuation-drafter draft --demo --revise-loops 1

Two of the ten drafted claims, and what the tool said about them

Shown in full, exactly as produced. The critique pass runs against the same specification and reports what it cannot find support for.

Drafted claim 2

2. A manual override mechanism for a temperature-actuated valve, comprising: a rotatable knob threadably engaged with a valve body; and an override plunger operatively connected to the knob and configured to mechanically hold the valve element in either an open position or a closed position independent of a state of the shape-memory alloy spring.

UNSUPPORTED: 'manual override mechanism' is not described in the parent specification - the spec mentions a manual override mechanism but does not describe its components or structure

ANTECEDENT BASIS: 'the valve body' lacks antecedent basis - introduce it or change to 'a valve body'

Drafted claim 3

3. A temperature-actuated valve assembly for industrial process control applications, comprising: a valve body defining an inlet port, an outlet port, and a central flow passage; a valve seat disposed within the central flow passage; a valve element movably positioned to selectively engage the valve seat; a shape-memory alloy spring coupled to the valve element and configured with a transition temperature in the range of 40 to 80 degrees Celsius; a bias spring urging the valve element toward an open position when the shape-memory alloy spring is below the transition temperature; and a thermal mass made of copper or aluminum positioned adjacent the central flow passage and in thermal communication with the shape-memory alloy spring.

RESTATEMENT: This claim merely restates the parent claims 1-3 without pursuing different scope

MOSAIC: The combination of elements from parent claims 1, 2, and 3 is not disclosed as a single invention - the spec does not present a valve assembly with all these features together in one embodiment

Ten drafted, ten flagged, and that is the point

Every claim this run produced was flagged by the same tool that drafted it. That is not a bad run; it is what R&D-grade means, and it is why the output is a starting point for a practitioner rather than a draft to file. A tool that flagged nothing would be making a claim about your application that this one deliberately does not make.

The second claim above was flagged for antecedent basis: it recites “the valve body” without introducing it. The third was flagged for restating the parent rather than pursuing different scope. Both are ordinary drafting defects, both are the reader's to resolve, and finding them is the work this tool does.

What produced this

Model: qwen3-coder:30b, running locally. Nothing left the machine.
Input: fixtures/micro (the walkthrough the published lessons use)
Captured: 2026-08-18
Claims drafted: 10
Claims flagged by the critique pass: 10

Model choice is not interchangeable, and this one sits in the middle of the measured range: what was measured records which models fail outright and how far the local tier sits behind the remote one. To run this yourself, see choosing a model for your machine or the download.