site-analysis-feasibility
Skill39 starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub
Analyze architectural sites and project feasibility across survey, topography, climate, access, utilities, context, planning constraints, hazards, opportunities, capacity, and development risk. Use for site due diligence, constraints/opportunities maps, feasibility studies, and site capacity tests.
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
- rhino-grasshopper-workflowSkill
- site-regulation-researchSkill
- structural-coordinationSkill
- sustainability-daylight-energySkill
- visualization-renderingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are 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.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 17
Keep verified facts, project assumptions, design options, and unresolved questions visibly separate.
- Distinctive: line 23
Test program fit against sourced site controls, access, servicing, open-space and likely infrastructure needs.
- Distinctive: line 35
Every dimensional/regulatory claim has a source or is labelled assumption.
- Very specific: line 42
Do not replace cadastral/topographic/geotechnical/environmental surveys.
- Distinctive: line 43
Do not state planning approval, flood safety or geotechnical suitability as confirmed without competent review.
- Distinctive: line 47
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
Site Analysis & Feasibility
Turn raw site evidence into a traceable feasibility picture before design. Work from survey/GIS/authority/client evidence; mark absent inputs UNKNOWN.
Preflight
- Site boundary/area, survey datum, north, contours/topography and coordinate system.
- Access, transport, utilities, easements, rights-of-way, trees/ecology, heritage and adjacent uses.
- Climate/orientation, sun/wind, views, noise, flooding/drainage, geotechnical information and known hazards.
- Planning/zoning controls only when sourced through the applicable authority.
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
- Map evidence at regional, neighborhood and site scales; separate fact, inference and design opportunity.
- Build constraints/opportunities and developable-envelope diagrams; never invent missing survey geometry.
- Test program fit against sourced site controls, access, servicing, open-space and likely infrastructure needs.
- Compare options using explicit criteria such as access, massing capacity, climate response, risk and phasing.
Deliverables
- Site evidence register
- Constraints/opportunities matrix
- Site capacity and risk summary
- Recommended investigations and unresolved questions
Verification
- Every dimensional/regulatory claim has a source or is labelled assumption.
- Coordinate, unit and area bases are explicit; conflicting sources are surfaced.
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 replace cadastral/topographic/geotechnical/environmental surveys.
- Do not state planning approval, flood safety or geotechnical suitability as confirmed without competent 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.