rhino-grasshopper-workflow
Skill39 starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub
Plan and review safe Rhino 3D, Grasshopper, RhinoCommon, Rhino Python, and parametric AEC geometry workflows. Use for Grasshopper definitions, data trees, geometry pipelines, bake/export operations, and repeatable Rhino automation.
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
- concept-schematic-designSkill
- 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
- 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
- Very specific: line 8
Use for Rhino and Grasshopper-specific geometry and parametric automation.
- Distinctive: line 19
Treat Grasshopper data trees explicitly: branches, paths, item ordering, graft/flatten behavior, nulls, and empty lists may change results.
- Distinctive: line 22
Never assert fabrication, structural, accessibility, or code compliance from geometry alone.
- Distinctive: line 36
Prefer read-only inspection or a small subset first.
- Distinctive: line 50
Do not invent RhinoCommon API signatures, Grasshopper components, plug-in availability, or jurisdictional requirements.
≈ “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
Rhino / Grasshopper Workflow
Use for Rhino and Grasshopper-specific geometry and parametric automation. Route general IFC/DWG/DXF/SVG and other CAD/BIM tasks to cad-bim-automation; Revit/pyRevit/Dynamo tasks belong to revit-workflow.
Establish the working context
Record the Rhino and Grasshopper versions, operating system, document units and tolerances, coordinate system, available plug-ins, input file formats, and execution surface (manual Rhino, Grasshopper graph, Rhino Python, RhinoCommon, or a verified integration). Leave unknowns as UNKNOWN. Check the installed environment or official version-matched documentation before naming API members or components.
Model and graph safety
- Preserve source .3dm and .gh/.ghx files. Prefer a duplicate document, versioned definition, or new export path for experiments.
- Inventory inputs, expected outputs, geometry types, object counts, layers, units, tolerances, and reference dependencies before edits.
- Identify whether data is internal, referenced, or live-linked; do not assume external references are portable.
- Treat Grasshopper data trees explicitly: branches, paths, item ordering, graft/flatten behavior, nulls, and empty lists may change results.
- Identify cyclic dependencies, uncontrolled recomputation, stochastic inputs without fixed seeds, and expensive operations before batch execution.
- For any bake, replace, delete, or export action, require explicit scope and a reversible plan. Do not silently modify the original model.
- Never assert fabrication, structural, accessibility, or code compliance from geometry alone.
Repeatable workflow
1. Define invariants
Specify intended geometry and parametric relationships, allowable tolerance, expected counts, coordinate system, unit convention, and acceptance checks. State whether topology, object IDs, layer assignment, and naming must remain stable.
2. Preflight
Inspect definition inputs, slider ranges, referenced geometry, plug-in dependencies, data-tree shapes, missing components, warning/error states, and computation cost. Mark anything uninspected rather than guessing.
3. Prototype on a bounded sample
Prefer read-only inspection or a small subset first. Record baseline values and export previews to new paths. Verify closed/open curves and solids, invalid geometry, duplicate objects, normals, intersections, and bounding boxes where relevant.
4. Execute with checkpoints
For graph changes, document the components/parameters affected and expected branch-level output changes. For scripting, use the runtime's supported document context and undo/transaction facilities where available; verify their exact behavior for the installed version. For baking, capture source-to-output mapping and avoid overwriting unrelated objects.
5. Verify and report
Compare before/after object counts, data-tree paths, geometry validity, units, tolerances, bounding boxes, exported file integrity, and sample element mappings. Separate successes, skipped items, and failures. Supply rollback steps and unresolved dependencies.
Deliverable
Return a compact Environment / Inputs / Invariants / Proposed graph or script / Safety and rollback / Verification / Unknowns plan. For reviews, prioritize silent data-tree changes, unit/tolerance drift, invalid geometry, plug-in/version assumptions, reference loss, and destructive bake/export operations.
Do not invent RhinoCommon API signatures, Grasshopper components, plug-in availability, or jurisdictional requirements. Verify version-specific behavior before prescribing executable code.
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.

