OpenSDL: Skill for Claude Code

Design a laboratory for its application

Apply the method in docs/guides/design-a-lab.md. This procedure records its output as durable decisions in a laboratory repository.

Boundary with start-here

Use design-lab for plant and interface questions: what to build, which requirement drives it, which choices cannot be revised later, and how a pattern from another field transfers to this material system. Use start-here for OpenSDL configuration: repository context, inventory, capability mapping, and the first workflow. A design session usually precedes a start-here session, or interrupts one when a configuration question turns out to be a physical one.

Inputs

• the decision the loop must make, and the measurement that informs it;
• the material system and its relevant properties or hazard classes;
• throughput, cycle time, and expected campaign length;
• existing equipment, facility constraints, and budget envelope; and
• the intended growth path beyond the first workflow.

Begin with partial input. Ask only for what changes the recommendation.

Procedure

1. Read the nearest AGENTS.md and inspect Git state before changing files. In a laboratory repository, read docs/lab/context.md, inventory.md, setup-plan.md, and decisions.md.
2. State the loop before the equipment: the decision, the measurement, the shortest operation sequence, and the cycle count needed for convergence. Flag when cycle time and required cycles make the loop impractical, because no downstream choice fixes that.
3. Define the minimum viable loop. Prefer one closed loop with simulated or manual steps over a broader set of automated but open steps.
4. Separate plant, interface, capability, and campaign decisions. Keep a physical constraint out of workflow logic.
5. For each component under discussion, name the functions it serves before naming a mechanism. When requirements conflict inside one part, propose an architectural split rather than a more complex part.
6. Identify the binding constraint by estimating margin per requirement. Record it. Warn explicitly when a candidate design is borrowed from a field whose binding constraint differs.
7. Check every borrowed pattern against the material-system table in the guide. Report any row that applies, and treat a recognized hazard class as a prompt for qualified review rather than a resolved question.
8. Classify each decision as reversible or irreversible. Recommend deliberate design time and outside review for the irreversible ones, and recommend over-provisioning payload, envelope, utilities, bandwidth, and slot count.
9. Where the laboratory must grow, propose a versioned interface specification and record it in the laboratory repository beside the manifest.
10. For unattended operation, identify each state the machine must observe rather than infer, and name the failure modes that warrant verification by two different physical principles.
11. Keep safety functions in an independent rated system that OpenSDL cannot outvote. Do not design an interlock that depends on the orchestration layer.
12. Write results into docs/lab/decisions.md and setup-plan.md: the choice, the rejected alternatives, the driving constraint, and the condition that would justify revisiting it.
13. Hand the next task to start-here, create-lab, add-capability, add-adapter, or develop-workflow.