NINI
65 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
65 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: fesa-numerical-review
|
|
description: Use when independently reviewing FESA FEM numerical review evidence, formulation correctness, stability risks, patch tests, locking, Jacobian handling, and implementation planning readiness.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# FESA Numerical Review
|
|
|
|
Use this skill to review a formulation as a numerical algorithm contract before implementation planning.
|
|
|
|
## Inputs
|
|
|
|
Read these first:
|
|
|
|
- `AGENTS.md`
|
|
- `docs/SOLVER_AGENT_DESIGN.md`
|
|
- `docs/numerical-reviews/README.md`
|
|
- `docs/formulations/<feature-id>-formulation.md`
|
|
- Related requirements and research documents when needed
|
|
|
|
## Workflow
|
|
|
|
1. Lead with findings and required revisions.
|
|
2. Check dimensional consistency, signs, DOF ordering, constrained/free assumptions, and coordinate transforms.
|
|
3. Review B matrix or kinematic operator consistency.
|
|
4. Review constitutive matrix or stress update contract.
|
|
5. Review Jacobian rules, determinant checks, derivative transforms, and distortion handling.
|
|
6. Review integration rule, Gauss points, weights, and full/reduced/selective integration policy.
|
|
7. Check element residual, internal force, external force, stiffness, tangent, symmetry, and positive definiteness expectations.
|
|
8. Assess rigid body modes, patch test readiness, hourglass, shear locking, volumetric locking, singular Jacobian, conditioning, and convergence risk.
|
|
9. Decide status: `pass-for-implementation-planning`, `needs-formulation-revision`, `needs-research`, `needs-reference-model`, or `blocked`.
|
|
|
|
## Output Contract
|
|
|
|
Produce or revise `docs/numerical-reviews/<feature-id>-review.md` with:
|
|
|
|
- Metadata and source formulation
|
|
- Review Verdict
|
|
- Critical Findings
|
|
- Numerical Risk Assessment
|
|
- Consistency Checks
|
|
- Verification Readiness
|
|
- Required Revisions
|
|
- Downstream Handoff
|
|
|
|
## Boundaries
|
|
|
|
- Do not implement code.
|
|
- Do not edit formulations directly.
|
|
- Do not design C++ APIs or file ownership.
|
|
- Do not run Abaqus, Nastran, or any reference solver.
|
|
- Do not generate or modify Abaqus reference CSV files.
|
|
- Do not approve release readiness.
|
|
- Do not decide reference comparison success.
|
|
|
|
## Quality Gate
|
|
|
|
- `pass-for-implementation-planning` means implementation planning may begin, not that the feature is complete.
|
|
- Confirmed defects, risks, open questions, and test recommendations are separated.
|
|
- Missing derivations are returned to Formulation Agent instead of being silently fixed.
|
|
- Evidence gaps are routed to Research Agent or Reference Model Agent.
|
|
|
|
## Handoff
|
|
|
|
Send pass results to Implementation Planning Agent and Reference Model Agent. Send math defects to Formulation Agent, source gaps to Research Agent, and blocked decisions to Coordinator Agent.
|