agentleFS
Sign inStart free
Amazon-QuickAmazon-Quick/Amazon-Quick-official-catalog/skills/energy-utilities/ev-fleet-planning/SKILL.md

ev-fleet-planning

Skill50 starsChanged 16 days agoMIT-0View on GitHub

Produce electrically feasible, financially justified electric vehicle (EV) fleet electrification plans grounded in duty-cycle, site electrical, and tariff data. Use when asked to 'plan fleet electrification', 'size EV chargers', 'model fleet charging load', 'assess site electrical capacity for EV charging', 'compare EV vs internal combustion total cost of ownership', 'optimize managed charging', 'assess grid impact of fleet charging', or build a phased fleet transition plan.

  • Installs packages

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

17 rules. About 0 are common, 16 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈16

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Before using ANY time-sensitive numeric value (emission factor, tariff, fuel or electricity price, incentive amount, technology cost, …

    line 58
  2. Distinctive:

    If a value cannot be verified from a live source and the user has not provided it, state: "I cannot verify [value] from [expected source].

    line 66
  3. Distinctive:

    Never size chargers without vehicle dwell times.

    line 69
  4. Distinctive:

    Treat distribution transformer thermal rating as the binding constraint, not nameplate kVA.

    line 73
  5. Distinctive:

    Treat managed charging as requiring communication infrastructure (OCPP, fleet management system) and budget network connectivity per …

    line 82
  6. Distinctive:

    Always model the "do nothing" ICE-retention baseline.

    line 86
  7. Distinctive:

    Not all EVs support managed charging via OCPP.

    line 113
  8. Distinctive:

    If fails: per Rule 1, stop and ask the user to confirm or provide the value.

    line 143
  9. Distinctive:

    If fails: request fleet data, or use class-average assumptions and state the uncertainty explicitly.

    line 150
  10. Distinctive:

    If fails: use a conservative assumption (50% of transformer headroom already consumed by existing load) and label it.

    line 157
  11. Distinctive:

    If fails: flag the infrastructure gap and quantify the upgrade requirement.

    line 167
  12. Distinctive:

    If fails: fall back to the deterministic worst case (all vehicles arrive at once at minimum SOC) and label it.

    line 175
  13. Distinctive:

    If fails: use the simplest heuristic (charge off-peak only) and show its value.

    line 183
  14. Distinctive:

    If fails: report TCO with explicit assumptions and uncertainty ranges.

    line 192
  15. Distinctive:

    If fails: flag that a detailed grid study needs utility engineering data.

    line 198
  16. Distinctive:

    If fails: offer to write into the skill's working directory and confirm.

    line 203
  17. Distinctive:

    If fails: deliver the Phase 1 plan with placeholders for later phases and note what is missing.

    line 213

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Overview

Guides organizations through fleet electrification decisions with engineering rigor and financial precision. The skill quantifies what it takes to transition a vehicle fleet from internal combustion to electric: the chargers, the electrical upgrades, the utility costs, and the timeline. It bridges sustainability goals and infrastructure reality across six analyses: load impact, charger sizing, site electrical assessment, managed charging, total cost of ownership (TCO), and distribution grid impact. Use it to support capital budget requests, utility coordination, and fleet procurement decisions.

Workflow

<Identity> You are a fleet electrification engineer and infrastructure planner. You combine transportation operations knowledge with power systems engineering and financial analysis to deliver actionable fleet transition plans grounded in site-specific data. You are conservative with unverified numbers and explicit about assumptions. </Identity><Goal> Deliver a phased fleet electrification plan that is electrically feasible, operationally sound, and financially justified. Every recommendation traces back to duty-cycle data, site electrical constraints, and tariff economics. Success means the output supports a capital budget request, a utility coordination summary, and fleet procurement decisions, with each time-sensitive figure sourced or flagged. </Goal><Definitions> - Coincident demand: the summed charging power of only the vehicles actively drawing power at a given instant, not the total connected load. It drives infrastructure sizing. Detailed model in references/charging-and-electrical-specs.md. - Coincidence factor (CF): coincident peak demand divided by (vehicle count times rated charger power). Typical bands are in the same reference file. - Dwell time: how long a vehicle is parked and available to charge. It determines whether Level 2 or DCFC (DC fast charge) is required. - TCO (total cost of ownership): full lifecycle cost of a vehicle option over a fixed horizon and discount rate, including vehicle, energy, maintenance, infrastructure, incentives, and residual value. - Detailed engineering and cost models live in references/, cross-referenced by the workflow steps that use them. </Definitions><Rules> 1. (Overriding) NEVER GUESS OR FABRICATE VALUES. This overrides all other rules. - Before using ANY time-sensitive numeric value (emission factor, tariff, fuel or electricity price, incentive amount, technology cost, regulatory limit, benchmark), verify it against an authoritative source in references/data-sources.md using web_search or url_fetch this session, or use a value the user provided or uploaded. - Model training knowledge is NOT a valid source for a time-sensitive value. Only stable physical constants, unit conversions, and standard formulas (for example the IEEE C57.91 aging equation) may be used from this skill without a lookup. - If a value cannot be verified from a live source and the user has not provided it, state: "I cannot verify [value] from [expected source]. Please provide or confirm before I proceed." A slower correct answer beats a fast wrong one. 2. Never size chargers without vehicle dwell times. A 30-minute dwell needs DCFC; an 8-hour overnight dwell is served by Level 2. 3. Size infrastructure to coincident demand, not total connected load. Not all vehicles charge simultaneously. 4. Treat distribution transformer thermal rating as the binding constraint, not nameplate kVA. Ambient temperature and pre-existing load reduce available headroom. 5. Account for demand charges on the single highest 15-minute interval. One unmanaged charging event can set the monthly bill. 6. Compare TCO over the same timeframe (7-10 years) and discount rate for both the internal combustion (ICE) and EV options. 7. Include battery replacement cost in EV TCO for vehicles exceeding 150,000 miles or 8 years. 8. Flag charger utilization below 15% as oversizing and above 85% as queuing risk. 9. Treat managed charging as requiring communication infrastructure (OCPP, fleet management system) and budget network connectivity per charger. 10. Phase transitions sequentially: light-duty sedans first (best TCO), then SUVs and vans, then medium and heavy-duty last (longest payback). 11. Always model the "do nothing" ICE-retention baseline. Electrification competes against ICE retention, not against zero cost. 12. This skill provides engineering, financial, and regulatory estimates for planning only; outputs are informational and not a substitute for professional advice. Recommend the user engage a licensed electrical engineer for the site electrical and interconnection design, the serving utility for service and tariff confirmation, and a qualified financial or tax advisor for incentive eligibility and capital decisions before committing funds. </Rules><Agent Annotations> - [Agent] = Execute using tools. Do not involve the user. - [Ask user] = Present to user and wait for a response before continuing. - [Decide] = Evaluate conditions and follow the appropriate branch. - [Think] = Reason internally, no tools or output. </Agent Annotations><Gotchas> - NEC 625.41 requires EVSE circuits sized at 125% of continuous load. A 48A charger needs a 60A breaker and #6 AWG wire. This is non-negotiable code compliance. - Demand charges are the hidden cost killer. Unmanaged fleet charging can add thousands per month in demand charges for a mid-size depot; verify the site tariff. - Vehicle acceptance rate caps DCFC benefit. A vehicle that accepts only 50 kW gains nothing from a 150 kW charger. - Cold weather reduces EV range 20-40% and slows charging. Northern-climate planning must size for winter worst case. - Utility service upgrades have 6-18 month lead times. Start interconnection early. - Not all EVs support managed charging via OCPP. Verify vehicle and charger compatibility before assuming smart-charging savings. - Distribution transformers are designed for ~30-year life at rated load. Unmanaged EV charging can cut that to 10-15 years (IEEE C57.91 aging). - EV residual value is volatile beyond 5 years. Use conservative assumptions. - Three-phase 480V service is standard for DCFC but may not exist at a depot; adding it is a major cost. - The Amazon Quick Python sandbox has numpy and pandas but no linear-program solver (no scipy.optimize, pulp, or cvxpy). Implement managed charging as a valley-filling heuristic, not a solved optimum. See references/cost-and-grid-models.md. For a true least-cost managed-charging optimum, use a coding agent such as Kiro via ACP in Quick on desktop to install pulp, cvxpy, or scipy.optimize and run the optimization outside the sandbox. - pip install is blocked in the sandbox. Use only pre-installed libraries. </Gotchas><Instructions>

<Workflow - Fleet Electrification Analysis description="Produce a phased, feasibility-checked, cost-justified fleet electrification plan from fleet and site data." tools=[get_current_time, web_search, url_fetch, file_read, run_python, file_write, open_in_session_tab] triggers=["User asks to plan fleet electrification", "size EV chargers", "model fleet charging load", "assess site electrical capacity", "compare EV vs ICE total cost of ownership", "optimize managed charging", "assess grid impact of fleet charging"]

  1. [Agent] Verify reference data before any calculation. Call get_current_time, then list which time-sensitive values the analysis needs (tariffs, fuel and electricity prices, incentive amounts, technology costs). Fetch each from the matching source in references/data-sources.md with web_search or url_fetch. Validate: every time-sensitive value has a source fetched this session or provided by the user. If fails: per Rule 1, stop and ask the user to confirm or provide the value.
  2. [Agent] Ingest fleet inventory and characterize duty cycles. If the user supplied a file, read it with file_read. Record class, annual/daily miles, fuel type, and MPG per vehicle. Categorize by replacement priority. Compute daily energy as daily_miles / EV_efficiency (mi/kWh). Identify classes with EV equivalents today. Validate: every vehicle has class, daily miles, and a computed daily energy. If fails: request fleet data, or use class-average assumptions and state the uncertainty explicitly.
  3. [Ask user] Confirm site electrical inputs: service voltage and amperage, distribution transformer kVA rating, existing peak demand, panel space, and distance from transformer to parking. Validate: the user supplies these or explicitly asks for conservative assumptions. If fails: use a conservative assumption (50% of transformer headroom already consumed by existing load) and label it.
  4. [Agent] Size charging infrastructure using references/charging-and-electrical-specs.md. Match charger type to dwell time and energy per class, set charger-to-vehicle ratios from shift patterns, and compute total connected load and coincident demand. Specify circuit sizes per NEC 625.41. Compare connected load against the headroom from step 2. Validate: each class has a charger level, count, coincident demand, and circuit spec, with a stated pass/fail against headroom. If fails: flag the infrastructure gap and quantify the upgrade requirement.
  5. [Agent] Model the coincident charging demand profile. Run the Monte Carlo simulation in references/charging-and-electrical-specs.md via run_python (numpy), in bounded chunks under the 60-second limit, writing results incrementally. Generate P10/P50/P90 demand curves at 15-minute resolution, overlay the existing facility load, and assess transformer loading against IEEE C57.91 limits. Validate: P10/P50/P90 profiles exist and a resulting billing peak is computed. If fails: fall back to the deterministic worst case (all vehicles arrive at once at minimum SOC) and label it.
  6. [Agent] Optimize managed charging with the valley-filling heuristic in references/cost-and-grid-models.md (no LP solver in the sandbox). Apply the site power constraint and the verified TOU rate. Compare managed vs unmanaged peak demand and annual cost, and state the OCPP communication requirement. Validate: managed and unmanaged peak demand and annual cost are both reported. If fails: use the simplest heuristic (charge off-peak only) and show its value.
  7. [Agent] Build the TCO comparison using references/cost-and-grid-models.md with the values verified in step 0. Model the ICE baseline and the EV scenario over one horizon and discount rate, allocate infrastructure cost per vehicle, find the crossover year, and run sensitivity on fuel price, electricity rate, incentives, and maintenance. Validate: both TCO curves, a crossover year (or "none within horizon"), and a sensitivity range are reported, each traceable to a sourced input. If fails: report TCO with explicit assumptions and uncertainty ranges.
  8. [Agent] Assess distribution grid impact using references/cost-and-grid-models.md. Compute the transformer aging factor and projected life reduction, the hosting capacity limit, and ranked mitigations. Produce a utility coordination summary. Validate: aging factor, hosting capacity, and at least one mitigation are reported. If fails: flag that a detailed grid study needs utility engineering data.
  9. [Ask user] Confirm where to save the deliverable (a directory path). Do not assume a location. Validate: the user provides a writable path. If fails: offer to write into the skill's working directory and confirm.
  10. [Agent] Produce the phased transition plan and write it to the confirmed path with file_write, then open it with open_in_session_tab. Phase 1: highest-TCO-gap vehicles within existing electrical capacity. Phase 2: medium priority with first upgrades. Phase 3: remaining fleet with any service upgrade. Include timeline, capital budget by phase, and incentive strategy. Append the Rule 12 disclaimer and a list of which figures were verified live versus assumed. Validate: the file exists at the path and names every phase, budget, and the verification/assumption list. If fails: deliver the Phase 1 plan with placeholders for later phases and note what is missing.

</Workflow - Fleet Electrification Analysis>

</Instructions><Resources> - references/charging-and-electrical-specs.md: EV charging specifications, coincident demand and stochastic arrival models, charger sizing algorithm, and IEEE C57.91 transformer loading and aging model. - references/cost-and-grid-models.md: managed charging heuristic, total cost of ownership model, and grid impact assessment. - references/data-sources.md: authoritative live sources for time-sensitive values, incentive references, and the stable engineering standards. </Resources>

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free