agentleFS
HeshamFSHeshamFS/materials-simulation-skills/skills/core-numerical/convergence-study/SKILL.md

convergence-study

Skill83 starsChanged 9 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Perform spatial and temporal convergence analysis for solution verification — compute observed convergence orders from grid or timestep refinement studies, apply Richardson extrapolation to estimate discretization error, and calculate the Grid Convergence Index (GCI) per ASME V&V 20 standards. Use when verifying that a numerical solution converges at the expected rate, estimating the error on the finest mesh, checking whether grids are in the asymptotic range, or preparing formal verification reports, even if the user only asks "is my mesh fine enough" or "how accurate is my solution."

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 5

    Very specific

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

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

    No third-party packages — scripts use only the Python standard library (math).

    line 44
  2. Very specific:

    When explaining a refinement result, compare only the dimensionless results.mean_order with the expected order.

    line 137
  3. Very specific:

    Use the deterministic explanation renderer for final scientific text from trusted, input-verified h_refinement JSON.

    line 149
  4. Very specific:

    All numeric parameters (spacings, timesteps, values, expected-order, order) are validated as finite positive numbers

    line 176
  5. Very specific:

    All subprocess calls use explicit argument lists (no shell=True)

    line 191

≈ “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

Convergence Study

Goal

Provide script-driven convergence analysis for verifying that numerical solutions converge at the expected rate as the mesh or timestep is refined.

Requirements

  • Python 3.10+
  • No third-party packages — scripts use only the Python standard library (math).

Inputs to Gather

InputDescriptionExample
Grid spacingsSequence of mesh sizes (coarse to fine)0.4,0.2,0.1,0.05
Timestep sizesSequence of dt values0.04,0.02,0.01
Solution valuesQoI at each refinement level1.16,1.04,1.01,1.0025
Expected orderFormal order of the numerical scheme2.0
Safety factorGCI safety factor (1.25 default)1.25

Script Outputs (JSON Fields)

ScriptKey Outputs
scripts/h_refinement.pyresults.observed_orders, results.mean_order, results.richardson_extrapolated_value, results.convergence_assessment
scripts/dt_refinement.pySame as h_refinement but for temporal convergence
scripts/richardson_extrapolation.pyresults.extrapolated_value, results.error_estimate, results.observed_order
scripts/gci_calculator.pyresults.observed_order, results.gci_fine, results.gci_coarse, results.asymptotic_ratio, results.in_asymptotic_range, results.extrapolated_value, results.notes

Workflow

  1. Run grid/timestep refinement study with at least 3 levels
  2. Compute observed convergence order with h_refinement.py or dt_refinement.py
  3. Compare observed order to expected order of the scheme
  4. Estimate discretization error via Richardson extrapolation
  5. Report GCI for formal solution verification using gci_calculator.py
  6. Document convergence results and any anomalies

Decision Guidance

Do you have 3+ refinement levels?
+-- YES --> Run h_refinement.py or dt_refinement.py
|           +-- Observed order matches expected? --> Order agreement; check persistence and error assumptions
|           +-- Order too low? --> Check: pre-asymptotic, coding error, insufficient resolution
|           +-- Order too high? --> Check: superconvergence or cancellation effects
+-- NO (only 2 levels) --> Use richardson_extrapolation.py with assumed order
                           (less reliable without order verification)

CLI Examples

# Spatial convergence with 4 grid levels
python3 scripts/h_refinement.py --spacings 0.4,0.2,0.1,0.05 --values 1.16,1.04,1.01,1.0025 --expected-order 2.0 --json

# Temporal convergence with 3 timestep levels
python3 scripts/dt_refinement.py --timesteps 0.04,0.02,0.01 --values 2.12,2.03,2.0075 --expected-order 2.0 --json

# Richardson extrapolation with assumed 2nd-order
python3 scripts/richardson_extrapolation.py --spacings 0.02,0.01 --values 1.0032,1.0008 --order 2.0 --json

# GCI for 3-mesh verification
python3 scripts/gci_calculator.py --spacings 0.04,0.02,0.01 --values 1.0128,1.0032,1.0008 --json

Error Handling

ErrorCauseResolution
spacings and values must have the same lengthMismatched input arraysProvide equal-length lists
At least 2 refinement levels requiredToo few data pointsAdd more refinement levels
Exactly 3 refinement levels requiredGCI needs 3 levelsProvide fine/medium/coarse
Oscillatory convergence detectedNon-monotone convergenceCheck mesh quality or scheme

Interpretation Guidance

ScenarioMeaningAction
Observed order matches expectedEvidence consistent with the expected error lawCheck persistence across levels; label estimates conditional
Observed order < expectedPre-asymptotic or coding bugRefine further or debug
Negative observed orderSolution divergingCheck implementation
GCI asymptotic ratio near 1.0See caveat belowConfirm with order comparison
GCI asymptotic ratio far from 1.0Not in asymptotic rangeRefine further

Asymptotic-ratio caveat (constant refinement ratios). When the refinement ratios are equal (r21 == r32, the common case), the asymptotic ratio AR = GCI_coarse / (r^p * GCI_fine) reduces algebraically to f1/f2. It then only measures the relative gap between the two finest QoI values — not whether the data follow the assumed power law — so an AR near 1.0 can give false reassurance even when the observed order is far from expected. The gci_calculator.py JSON emits a notes entry flagging this. For a real asymptotic-range determination:

  1. Compare the observed order p to the scheme's theoretical/expected order — a match supports the expected error law but does not establish an asymptotic range.
  2. For stronger verification, use 4+ systematically refined grids and check that the observed order is consistent across successive grid triplets (h_refinement.py reports one order per triplet plus mean_order).

Verification checklist

When explaining a refinement result, compare only the dimensionless results.mean_order with the expected order. The results.richardson_extrapolated_value estimates the observable at zero spacing and has the same units as the input observable; it is never the convergence order. Use order_comparison, extrapolation_evidence, and scientific_interpretation from h_refinement.py to keep these roles explicit. For h=(0.2,0.1,0.05) and values=(1.04,1.01,1.0025), p=2 and the extrapolated observable=1. Compare 2 with the expected order, not 1. Keep this guidance in the final synthesis context. A single grid triplet cannot establish stable order across triplets: in_asymptotic_range is null for a positive single estimate. More grids, residual convergence and model validation remain needed.

Use the deterministic explanation renderer for final scientific text from trusted, input-verified h_refinement JSON. An order agreement decision is true when the measured order is within the stated tolerance, even though physical accuracy and asymptotic behavior remain unproven. The relative tolerance 0.1 means 10%, not 0.1%.

  • Used >= 3 systematically refined grids/timesteps so h_refinement.py / dt_refinement.py can report a results.mean_order; recorded the per-triplet results.observed_orders (a single-pair Richardson run does not verify order).
  • Recorded results.mean_order and confirmed results.convergence_assessment reads PASS (observed order within 10% of the scheme's expected order); a FAIL or unknown means the result is not yet verified.
  • Checked results.in_asymptotic_range and all notes. Null means insufficient evidence; true is only a successive-order heuristic, not proof. Label any quoted extrapolation conditional on the power-law error assumption, and suppress it for invalid or diverging sequences.
  • Checked refinement ratios r21/r32 from gci_calculator.py are >= 1.3 (round-off noise floor) and that no Oscillatory convergence detected error was raised.
  • Recorded results.gci_fine (with the safety factor used: 1.25 for >= 3 grids with verified order, 3.0 for 2 grids with assumed order) as the reported discretization uncertainty, plus results.extrapolated_value as the best estimate.
  • For constant refinement ratios, did NOT treat asymptotic_ratio near 1.0 as proof of asymptotic range (it degenerates to f1/f2); confirmed the asymptotic range via observed-order-vs-expected and read the gci_calculator.py notes caveat.

Common pitfalls & rationalizations

Tempting shortcutWhy it's wrong / what to do
"Two grids agree closely, so it's converged"Two levels cannot estimate observed order. Run h_refinement.py/dt_refinement.py with >= 3 levels; a 2-grid Richardson run uses an assumed order and needs safety factor 3.0, not 1.25.
"The asymptotic ratio is ~1.0, so we're in the asymptotic range"With constant refinement ratios AR = GCI_coarse/(r^p*GCI_fine) reduces to f1/f2 and only measures the gap between the two finest QoI values. Verify the asymptotic range by comparing observed order to the expected order (and 4+ grid consistency).
"GCI_fine is tiny, so the solution is grid-independent"A near-zero GCI can also mean the QoI is insensitive to refinement or the differences are in round-off noise (ratios < 1.3). Confirm in_asymptotic_range is true and refinement ratios are >= 1.3 first.
"Observed order is higher than expected, even better"Order well above the formal order usually signals superconvergence or error cancellation, not extra accuracy. Treat it as a flag (convergence_assessment is FAIL when >10% off) and verify with more grid levels.
"The script printed an extrapolated value, so use it"When the observed order is non-positive the solution is diverging and h_refinement.py returns richardson_extrapolated_value = null with a diverging note. Do not quote an extrapolated value or GCI in that case.
"Implicit/stable solver, so any timestep is fine for the study"Temporal stability is not temporal accuracy. dt_refinement.py still needs >= 3 systematically reduced timesteps to recover the scheme's order; a too-coarse dt sequence stays pre-asymptotic.

Security

Input Validation

  • All numeric parameters (spacings, timesteps, values, expected-order, order) are validated as finite positive numbers
  • Comma-separated value lists are length-matched (spacings and values must have equal length) and capped at 10,000 entries
  • GCI calculator enforces exactly 3 refinement levels; Richardson extrapolation requires at least 2
  • Safety factor is validated as a finite number not less than 1.0 (Roache uses Fs in {1.25, 3.0})

File Access

  • Scripts read no external files; all inputs are provided via CLI arguments
  • Scripts write only to stdout (JSON output); no files are created unless the agent explicitly uses the Write tool

Tool Restrictions

  • Bash: Used to execute the four Python analysis scripts (h_refinement.py, dt_refinement.py, richardson_extrapolation.py, gci_calculator.py) with explicit argument lists
  • Read: Used to inspect script source and reference documentation

Safety Measures

  • No eval(), exec(), or dynamic code generation
  • All subprocess calls use explicit argument lists (no shell=True)
  • Scripts use only Python standard library (math module); no pickle loading or deserialization of untrusted data
  • Minimal tool surface (Bash and Read only) limits the agent's ability to modify the filesystem

References

  • references/convergence_theory.md - Formal convergence order, log-log analysis, asymptotic range
  • references/gci_guidelines.md - Roache's GCI method, ASME V&V 20, safety factors

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.