agentleFS
equinorequinor/neqsim-community-skills/skills/field-development/neqsim-design-basis-screening/SKILL.md

neqsim-design-basis-screening

Skill4 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Educational design-basis margin screening for flow, pressure, and temperature design margins versus operating conditions, with a standards-basis echo. USE WHEN: a task needs a public, screening-level check that proposed design capacities and conditions carry sensible margins over operating before detailed mechanical design and code rating.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill to assemble and sanity-check a screening design basis: it compares operating capacities and conditions against the proposed …

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    When an early concept needs a quick design-margin sanity check.

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    When an agent needs an upstream "design basis" feed for a facilities or cost-estimate screening chain.

    line 27
  4. Distinctive:

    When documenting the capacities and conditions a downstream model should use.

    line 29
  5. Distinctive:

    No confidential data or proprietary methods are included.

    line 118

≈ “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

Design Basis Screening

Use this skill to assemble and sanity-check a screening design basis: it compares operating capacities and conditions against the proposed design capacities and conditions, computes indicative flow, pressure, and temperature margins, and flags margins below transparent public thresholds. It also echoes the design standards basis. It is intentionally simple and should guide users toward validated mechanical design, the applicable standards (ASME, API, DNV, NORSOK), and qualified engineering review.

When to Use

  • When an early concept needs a quick design-margin sanity check.
  • When an agent needs an upstream "design basis" feed for a facilities or cost-estimate screening chain.
  • When documenting the capacities and conditions a downstream model should use.

Inputs

  • operating_flow / design_flow: operating and design flow rate (same unit).
  • operating_pressure_bara / design_pressure_bara: operating and design pressure.
  • operating_temperature_c / design_temperature_c: operating and design temperature.
  • standards: optional list of design standards labels.

Outputs

  • flow_margin, pressure_margin: design/operating ratios.
  • temperature_margin_c: design minus operating temperature.
  • flow_flag, pressure_flag, temperature_flag: ok or low.
  • standards: normalized standards basis.
  • design_warning: ok or watch.
  • flags: human-readable warnings.
  • neqsim_available: whether the optional NeqSim package is importable.
  • assumptions: public assumptions and required follow-up.

Engineering Method

The skill computes simple margins: flow and pressure as design/operating ratios, temperature as a design-minus-operating difference. Each margin is compared against an indicative public threshold (default 1.10 for flow and pressure ratios, 10 C for temperature). A low flag is raised when a margin is below its threshold, and a missing standards basis is flagged. The verdict is watch when any flag is raised, otherwise ok.

This skill performs no code-rating, wall-thickness, or mechanical-design check. It is a transparent placeholder that must be replaced by validated mechanical design for any quantitative use.

Python Usage Pattern

from design_basis_screening import DesignBasisModel

model = DesignBasisModel()
result = model.evaluate(
    operating_flow=100.0,
    design_flow=120.0,
    operating_pressure_bara=60.0,
    design_pressure_bara=70.0,
    operating_temperature_c=40.0,
    design_temperature_c=60.0,
    standards=("ASME VIII Div.1", "NORSOK P-001"),
)

print(result.flow_margin, result.pressure_margin, result.temperature_margin_c)
print(result.design_warning)
for flag in result.flags:
    print(flag)

Validated NeqSim Path

This screening is a placeholder. For a real design basis use:

  • NeqSim mechanical-design classes (neqsim.process.mechanicaldesign) for vessel, pipe, compressor, and heat-exchanger design with code factors.
  • The applicable standards databases (ASME, API, DNV, NORSOK) for ratings.
  • The community pressure-drop-screening, line-velocity-check, and pipe-wall-thickness-screening skills for related hydraulic and mechanical screening.

Escalation

Escalate any watch verdict, and any quantitative use, to validated NeqSim mechanical design and qualified engineering review against the applicable codes.

Validation Checklist

  • Inputs are validated and within stated ranges.
  • Examples use public data only.
  • Screening assumptions are stated explicitly.
  • Limitations are respected.
  • Quantitative use is escalated to validated NeqSim models.

Common Mistakes

SymptomCauseFix
Unrealistic resultInputs outside the screening rangeKeep inputs within the stated bounds
Misused for designScreening output taken as finalEscalate to validated NeqSim models

Limitations

  • Educational screening only; not a validated design method.
  • No confidential data or proprietary methods are included.
  • Escalate any quantitative or design use to validated NeqSim workflows.

References

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.