agentleFS
Sign inStart free
MicrosoftKnown publishermicrosoft/cat-agent-skills/submissions/engineering-change-bom/skills/standards-check/SKILL.md

standards-check

Skill95 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub

Checks the proposed change against drawing standards and internal design rules, citing each rule applied. Use when the user says "does this meet the design rules", "standards check", "is this change allowed", or after bom-impact in a change run.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    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:

    After bom-impact in every change run.

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    Every finding cites the standard or design-rule id verbatim from the reference file.

    line 21
  3. Distinctive:

    No approval language - the change board decides.

    line 24

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

Standards Check

Purpose

Apply the design-standards excerpts to the classified change: fit-definition implications (ASME Y14.5), press-fit band rule DR-12, fatigue-surface rule DR-31, re-baselining requirements.

When to use

After bom-impact in every change run.

Inputs

impact.json + references/design-standards-excerpts.md.

Steps

  1. Validate against the contract.
  2. For each applicable rule, record a finding {rule, applies, result, citation} - grounded in the excerpt text, never from memory.
  3. A finding never overrides an engine escalation; it can only add findings.

Output

standards_findings[] appended to the payload.

Grounding requirements

Every finding cites the standard or design-rule id verbatim from the reference file.

Constraints

  • Findings are cited or they do not exist; no un-grounded standards claims.
  • No approval language - the change board decides.

Escalation / uncertainty

A rule requiring analysis this plugin cannot do (stackup, stress sign-off): record as an open requirement, not a pass.

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