agentleFS
Sign inStart free
MakeItEzzz555MakeItEzzz555/Gridline/skills/mep-coordination/SKILL.md

mep-coordination

Skill39 starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub

Coordinate architectural design with mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire-protection and vertical-service requirements. Use for plant rooms, shafts, risers, ceiling/service zones, distribution routes, equipment access, louvers, drainage interfaces, penetrations and clash-resolution planning.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    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:

    Keep verified facts, project assumptions, design options, and unresolved questions visibly separate.

    line 15
  2. Distinctive:

    No airflow, electrical, hydraulic or fire-protection performance is assumed without engineer evidence.

    line 34
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not perform final MEP design or certify system performance.

    line 40
  4. Distinctive:

    If the native application is unavailable, produce a reproducible plan, script, structured data, SVG/DXF artifact, or exact in-application …

    line 45

≈ “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

MEP / Building Services Coordination

Protect spatial allowances, access and architectural intent while routing discipline calculations to qualified engineers.

Preflight

  • Available MEP/fire drawings/models, equipment schedules, plant/shaft requirements, ceiling zones, structural constraints and maintenance/replacement routes.
  • Rooms with special environmental, plumbing, power, data, ventilation or acoustic needs.

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

  1. Build a services-zone map by level and identify shafts/risers/plant rooms and major horizontal routes.
  2. Overlay services with structure, ceilings, facade, partitions, lighting and circulation; prioritize hard constraints and maintenance access.
  3. Track openings/penetrations and builder-work items with ownership/status.
  4. Resolve clashes through explicit option tradeoffs and record engineer-approved decisions.

Deliverables

  • MEP spatial allowance matrix
  • Shaft/plant/ceiling-zone coordination diagrams
  • Penetration/builder-work register
  • Clash/decision log

Verification

  • Vertical risers align, equipment access is preserved and coordination changes propagate to plans/sections/RCPs.
  • No airflow, electrical, hydraulic or fire-protection performance is assumed without engineer evidence.

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 perform final MEP design or certify system performance.
  • Maintainability, commissioning and life-safety requirements need 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.

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