agentleFS
NatchpaiNatchpai/Hardware-Copilot/.claude/skills/component-check/SKILL.md

component-check

Skill0 starsChanged 16 days agoMITView on GitHub

Checks and compares one or two electronic components used in a KiCad design, read-only, with evidence. Use when the user asks to verify a part number (MPN), datasheet, ratings, pinout, schematic symbol, footprint, package, pad-to-pin mapping, BOM entry, or a possible replacement part. Not for project-wide library link checks.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Read-only: KiCad files, libraries, BOMs and design records stay unchanged.

    line 15
  2. Distinctive:

    Check only the reference, MPN or pair the user asked about.

    line 16
  3. Distinctive:

    Use the manufacturer datasheet and package drawing for the exact variant and revision, and name the source.

    line 17
  4. Distinctive:

    Every datasheet value, stock status and check result needs a source.

    line 19
  5. Very specific:

    Never open or read a PDF. Datasheet values come from the user, official manufacturer web pages, or NotebookLM answers with cited text, used …

    line 27
  6. Very specific:

    If the project has .claude/rules/engineering.md, follow it.

    line 33
  7. Distinctive:

    Start with part metadata and only the datasheet sections the request needs.

    line 67
  8. Distinctive:

    Use supporting files or scripts only when they exist and apply.

    line 69

≈ “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

Component Check

Scope and safety

  • Read-only: KiCad files, libraries, BOMs and design records stay unchanged.
  • Check only the reference, MPN or pair the user asked about.
  • Use the manufacturer datasheet and package drawing for the exact variant and revision, and name the source.
  • A footprint name, pin count, ERC result or similar-looking package does not prove compatibility.
  • Every datasheet value, stock status and check result needs a source.

Evidence baseline

  • Label each significant claim VERIFIED (named evidence: CAD data, a calculation or an official source), ASSUMED (assumption stated), ESTIMATED (method and margin stated) or NOT_VERIFIED (evidence missing or check not run).
  • Never open or read a PDF. Datasheet values come from the user, official manufacturer web pages, or NotebookLM answers with cited text, used only after the user approves uploading the file. With none of these, the value is NOT_VERIFIED.
  • KiCad design and library files are read-only. Propose changes; do not apply them.
  • If the project has .claude/rules/engineering.md, follow it; it is the full policy.

Workflow

  1. Resolve $ARGUMENTS or the request into a reference, an MPN, or a pair of MPNs. For a KiCad reference, find its sheet instance and read only the relevant properties from the native .kicad_sch data, not a full-project netlist.
  2. Resolve the exact manufacturer and orderable MPN, including package and suffix. If it is ambiguous, list the candidate identities and let the user pick. If the reference is not found, report NOT_VERIFIED; you may list similar references, but do not choose one.
  3. Get the needed datasheet sections and package drawing from an allowed source. For a PDF, use NotebookLM only after the user approves: pin the notebook, and quote the cited table or pin text for the exact MPN. Record source and revision, or say the document could not be checked.
  4. Pick the checks the question needs:
    • Identity/BOM: manufacturer, MPN, value, variants and orderable package.
    • Electrical: absolute maximum ratings versus recommended operating conditions, limits, tolerances and derating.
    • Symbol: pin numbers, names, functions, power pins, special or multiplexed pins, and omitted pins.
    • Footprint: package variant, pad count and numbers, pin-1 orientation, dimensions and land pattern versus the exact datasheet package.
    • Substitution: electrical, functional, pinout, footprint and operating-condition compatibility; list the design changes it would need.
  5. Compare only the evidence you have for those checks. For a pin-to-net connection, get targeted connectivity from the saved schematic (with sch-inspect if installed); nearby text or labels are not a connection.
  6. For PCB pad, net or geometry evidence, use targeted board queries (with pcb-inspect if installed). For symbol, footprint and 3D-model links across the project, kicad-link-audit helps if installed. If a companion skill is missing, say so and do the check directly or mark it NOT_VERIFIED.
  7. Report each finding with its evidence source, the specific mismatch or limit, and the next action.

Result format

  • Target: reference or MPN, and the scope inspected.
  • Checks: PASS, FAIL, WARNING or NOT_VERIFIED, each with a short reason. PASS needs evidence for that check.
  • Evidence: datasheet revision, table or pin section, and CAD references when available.
  • Action: the correction to consider, or the human check needed.

Example

Target:   U7 (MPN as in BOM), symbol pins 1-8
Checks:   Pinout vs datasheet pin table  PASS   (pins 1-8, via NotebookLM, cited)
          Footprint land pattern         NOT_VERIFIED (package drawing not available)
          Absolute max VIN               WARNING (6 V max; net VIN_5V can reach 5.5 V, margin 0.5 V)
Evidence: datasheet rev C, table 5 and package drawing section; schematic U7 pins
Action:   Provide the package drawing values, then re-run the footprint check.

Efficiency

  • Start with part metadata and only the datasheet sections the request needs.
  • Load datasheets, BOMs, symbol libraries and PCB files in targeted parts, not whole.
  • Use supporting files or scripts only when they exist and apply. Write files only when the user asks.

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.