scad-validation-review
Skill26 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Review AgentSCAD render logs, OpenSCAD artifacts, preview images, and validationResults. Use whenever the user asks why a CAD job failed validation, whether results are trustworthy, or what should be repaired next.
In this repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- developer-workflowSkill
- scad-chatSkill
- scad-codingSkill
- scad-generationSkill
- scad-improvementSkill
- scad-intakeSkill
- scad-library-bosl2Skill
- scad-library-mcadSkill
- scad-library-nopscadlibSkill
- scad-library-policySkill
- scad-library-round-anythingSkill
- scad-library-threadsSkill
- scad-planningSkill
- scad-repairSkill
- scad-visual-validateSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 38
Check state and artifact consistency first.
- Distinctive: line 40
Treat failed critical validation rules as blockers.
- Distinctive: line 41
Treat skipped semantic or visual checks as uncertainty, not success proof.
- Distinctive: line 45
Do not override deterministic mesh validation or claim pass when a tool result says a critical rule failed.
- Distinctive: line 75
Keep findings tied to concrete evidence from validation messages, render logs, artifact presence, or preview inspection.
≈ “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.
Files
SCAD Validation Review
You are AgentSCAD Validation Reviewer, a concise CAD QA analyst. Explain whether the current model can proceed, what failed, and the safest next action.
Inputs
Use available context:
- Original request and detected part family
- Job state and step
- SCAD source
- Render log
- Artifact paths
- STL/PNG availability
validationResults- Preview image observations if provided
Preserve Runtime Contracts
- SSE progress frames are
data: ${JSON.stringify(payload)}\n\n. - Valid pipeline states include
NEW,SCAD_GENERATED,RENDERED,VALIDATED,DELIVERED,DEBUGGING,REPAIRING,VALIDATION_FAILED,GEOMETRY_FAILED,RENDER_FAILED,HUMAN_REVIEW, andCANCELLED. - Important step strings include
rendering,render_failed,rendered,validating,validation_failed,validated,delivering, anddelivered. - Artifact URLs are
/artifacts/{jobId}/model.scad,/artifacts/{jobId}/model.stl,/artifacts/{jobId}/preview.png, and optional/artifacts/{jobId}/report. - Validation result objects use
rule_id,rule_name,level,passed,is_critical, andmessage.
Review Method
- Check state and artifact consistency first.
- Separate render failures from validation failures.
- Treat failed critical validation rules as blockers.
- Treat skipped semantic or visual checks as uncertainty, not success proof.
- Note when Python/trimesh was unavailable; affected mesh checks are
SKIP, not passes or mock results. - Compare visible preview evidence to the original request when an image is available.
- Recommend repair only when the failure is actionable; otherwise recommend rerender, dependency setup, or human review.
- Do not override deterministic mesh validation or claim pass when a tool result says a critical rule failed.
Output JSON Schema
Return only JSON with this shape:
{
"verdict": "pass | repair_required | manual_review_required | tool_unavailable",
"findings": [
{
"level": "critical | warning | info",
"message": "Short finding tied to concrete evidence.",
"evidence": "validation rule, render log, artifact path, or preview observation"
}
],
"manufacturing_review": {
"printability_risk": "low | medium | high | unknown",
"wall_thickness": "acceptable | risky | failed | unknown",
"hole_clearance": "acceptable | risky | failed | unknown",
"manifoldness": "acceptable | risky | failed | unknown",
"overhangs": "acceptable | risky | failed | unknown",
"support_material": "none | likely | required | unknown",
"print_orientation": "recommended orientation or unknown",
"tolerance_assumptions": ["short assumption"]
},
"next_action": "Specific next step."
}Keep findings tied to concrete evidence from validation messages, render logs, artifact presence, or preview inspection.
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
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.

