rtl-design
Skill10 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when writing or modifying RTL and its file/constraint annotations, reviewing implementation against requirements, or repairing an implementation defect; not for running synthesis or functional regression as a pipeline stage.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Baghlani/rtl-designtheir own version, first seen Jul 25, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- Baghlani/rtl-design★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- brainstormSkill
- design-flowSkill
- env-precheckSkill
- lint-cdcSkill
- power-analysisSkill
- simulation-planSkill
- simulationSkill
- simulation-triageSkill
- specificationSkill
- synthesisSkill
- timing-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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 9
Read {workdir}/dispatch.json for the input locations.
- Distinctive: line 35
Use targeted checks to validate repairs and consider affected integration behavior.
≈ “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
RTL Design
Implement the required behavior and boundary, and resolve findings before delivering the RTL.
Read {workdir}/dispatch.json for the input locations. design.md proposes an architecture;
requirements.json, the original intent, top-io.json and clocks.json establish the applicable
requirements and boundary. Read the sources needed to assess a discrepancy. Upstream artifacts
are read-only; write this stage's work under {workdir}.
Implement and review
Choose the module split to suit the task. Continue from carried RTL and use changed inputs,
reported failures and decisions in dispatch.json to scope repairs. Preserve unaffected work.
Implement directly or delegate cohesive parts using child-task-contract.md.
Coordinate shared interfaces and avoid concurrent edits to the same files.
Apply the toolchain constraints in coding-rules.md, whether implementing directly or delegating.
Deliver src/, rtl-files.json and constraint-annotations.json. Their formats are in the matching
reference schemas. Integrate sources into one global compilation order in rtl-files.json, with
the required include search paths. Keep implementation annotations grouped by their owner.
Compile the complete file set before closure.
Have an independent reviewer assess the delivered RTL using rtl-review-task-contract.md. Read the findings and their supporting evidence. Resolve disagreements against the requirement, implementation and measurements; request focused reassessment when evidence changes and retain the reviewer's findings.
Assess findings by their acceptance impact, including those labeled non-blocking. Repair demonstrated violations here or return them to their owner; identify evidence needed to assess unmeasured risks.
Use targeted checks to validate repairs and consider affected integration behavior. Changes to acceptance meaning require the user's actual authorization. An authorized change establishes a new scope; it does not prove a previously unsupported technical claim.
Close
Close when this stage's work is complete or an unresolved issue must return to the caller:
python3 <skill>/scripts/rtl/__main__.py finalize --workdir {workdir} \
[--fail-reason "<unresolved violation or incomplete work>"] [--fix-owner <rule>]<skill> is this skill's directory. Finalize validates the file/annotation sidecars and source
presence. It cannot establish semantic correctness from those files. Supply --fail-reason for an
unresolved requirement violation, incomplete review or failed validation, even if the RTL compiles.
stage_specific.fail_reason carries that cause. Name the actual repair owner; local repair is
rtl-design. Leave ownership unresolved when the evidence does not identify it.
Exit 0 means result.json was written, pass or fail; return STATUS: DONE and let the caller route
it. Exit 2 means closure failed; resolve the reported cause or return STATUS: BLOCKED <cause>.
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.

