agentleFS
Sign inStart free
adeerkhanadeerkhan/vitruvius/skills/electrical/SKILL.md

electrical

Skill10 starsChanged 4 days agoMITView on GitHub

Electrical and electronics engineering research. Use when the user invokes /electrical or asks about electrical engineering topics — power systems, electronics, circuit design, controls, signal integrity, EMC, motors and drives, grid and renewables — or asks to verify an electrical claim or a component's specs. Dispatches to the shared engineering-research method with the electrical evidence landscape.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

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
  1. Distinctive:

    When a standard governs, cite the exact clause or section.

    line 27
  2. Distinctive:

    Units and notation: every number carries a unit.

    line 36
  3. Very specific:

    Datasheet claims: verify against the actual datasheet — a part number without a datasheet read is inferred, not verified.

    line 39
  4. Distinctive:

    Standards: verify the standard exists and read the actual clause before summarizing it.

    line 47
  5. Distinctive:

    Follow the method's artifact contract.

    line 54
  6. Very specific:

    If research hits an evidence dead-end — no standard, paper, or dataset addresses the question after exhausting the discovery layers — …

    line 65

≈ “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
<!-- VITRUVIUS-COMPILED-SKILL:BEGIN v1 sha256=f02f77b041a2fe307291599138c1d881e0793508c84e75aaed1f86a758c8fca5 -->

Electrical / Electronics Engineering Research

Activate the /skill:engineering-research method and run it with this domain payload. Do not restate the research loop here.

Evidence landscape

  • Standards/codes: IEEE, IEC, UL, NEC (NFPA 70), NFPA 79, IPC, CISPR. When a standard governs, cite the exact clause or section.
  • Primary sources: component datasheets and errata from the manufacturer, official standards portals, application notes, reference designs, peer- reviewed literature, grid/utility interconnection rules.
  • Prior art / practice: documented field failures, recall/advisory databases, failure-analysis reports, trade association guidance.

Verification criteria

  • Units and notation: every number carries a unit; watch SI prefixes (mA vs A, nF vs uF), RMS vs peak, dB vs linear, phasor conventions. Flag mixed or ambiguous claims.
  • Datasheet claims: verify against the actual datasheet — a part number without a datasheet read is inferred, not verified. Name the part, the manufacturer, and the datasheet revision.
  • Passive/active part values: a property must trace to a named part + datasheet, not a vague "a resistor".
  • Safety and code: anything touching mains, protection, or grounding must cite the governing code clause (e.g. NEC article). Design margins must be stated, not assumed.
  • Standards: verify the standard exists and read the actual clause before summarizing it. Cite clause numbers, not just the standard number.
  • Calculations: show formula, inputs, and units (impedance, power, gain, bandwidth) so the check can be re-run.

Deliverable shape

Follow the method's artifact contract. In the final artifact, end with a Sources section citing standard + clause, and datasheet + revision for every part value, marking each verified, inferred, or blocked.

Invocation Flags

Accept --deep and --quick flags and pass them through to the engineering-research method. See that skill for flag semantics.

Gap Detection

If research hits an evidence dead-end — no standard, paper, or dataset addresses the question after exhausting the discovery layers — suggest running /gap-analysis electrical <sub-topic> to formally validate and document the gap. Do not invoke gap-analysis automatically; offer it as a next step and wait for the user to confirm.

Scope and Boundaries

  • This skill produces research — it does NOT produce final designs or construction documents.
  • Research-only, not for final engineering sign-off. Licensed engineers must review and approve any design based on this research.

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