concept-schematic-design
Skill39 starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub
Generate and develop architectural concept and schematic design options from a validated brief and site evidence. Use for parti, massing, blocking/stacking, circulation, core strategy, floor-plan options, sections, elevations, roof/site concepts, and option comparison.
In this repository31 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- architectural-drawing-generationSkill
- architecture-orchestratorSkill
- architecture-programmingSkill
- architecture-red-teamSkill
- area-quantity-auditSkill
- autocad-dwg-workflowSkill
- building-envelope-performanceSkill
- cad-bim-automationSkill
- civil-site-designSkill
- concept-design-reviewSkill
- construction-administrationSkill
- construction-documentationSkill
- cost-planning-value-engineeringSkill
- drawing-qaSkill
- handover-fm-postoccupancySkill
- interior-fitout-designSkill
- life-safety-accessibilitySkill
- materials-specificationsSkill
- mep-coordinationSkill
- openbim-ifc-coordinationSkill
- precedent-researchSkill
- presentation-reviewSkill
- revit-workflowSkill
- rhino-grasshopper-workflowSkill
- site-analysis-feasibilitySkill
- site-regulation-researchSkill
- structural-coordinationSkill
- sustainability-daylight-energySkill
- visualization-renderingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Create design options and schematic deliverables.
- Very specific: line 15
Keep verified facts, project assumptions, design options, and unresolved questions visibly separate.
- Distinctive: line 34
Check program fit, access/circulation, approximate dimensions, vertical continuity, orientation, site envelope and obvious coordination …
- Distinctive: line 41
Do not call schematic output permit-ready or construction-ready.
- Distinctive: line 46
If the native application is unavailable, produce a reproducible plan, script, structured data, SVG/DXF artifact, or exact in-application …
≈ “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
Concept & Schematic Design
Create design options and schematic deliverables; keep constraints visible and design claims testable.
Preflight
- Validated program/brief, site evidence, jurisdictional constraints, target area/budget and client priorities.
- Required drawing scale/LOD, units, orientation and decision criteria.
Keep verified facts, project assumptions, design options, and unresolved questions visibly separate. If a required input is absent, record it as UNKNOWN rather than inventing it.
Workflow
- State 3-7 governing design drivers and non-negotiable constraints.
- Generate materially different options rather than cosmetic variations; include parti, massing, access, circulation/core, daylight and structural/service logic.
- Produce schematic plans/sections/elevations or vector/CAD instructions at an appropriate scale; reconcile areas to the brief.
- Score options against project criteria, expose tradeoffs, select only when the user/brief defines decision authority, then develop the preferred direction.
Deliverables
- Parti and design-driver diagrams
- Massing/blocking/stacking options
- Schematic plans, sections and elevations
- Area reconciliation and option matrix
- Preferred-option development brief
Verification
- Check program fit, access/circulation, approximate dimensions, vertical continuity, orientation, site envelope and obvious coordination conflicts.
- Label conceptual geometry and assumptions; do not disguise unresolved engineering/code questions.
For file/model changes, compare the result against a pre-change baseline and report changed items, skipped items, failures, and checks actually run.
Professional boundaries
- Do not call schematic output permit-ready or construction-ready.
- Structural, fire, accessibility and specialist systems require discipline review.
If a live CAD/BIM/GIS/analysis tool or MCP integration is available, inspect the current document/model and tool version before write operations. Prefer read-only inspection, dry runs, bounded samples, new output paths, and native undo/transaction mechanisms. Never claim a model or drawing was changed unless the tool confirms it.
If the native application is unavailable, produce a reproducible plan, script, structured data, SVG/DXF artifact, or exact in-application procedure instead of pretending to have operated the software.
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.

