# Engineering Reasoning Prover MCP

> Engineering Reasoning Prover runs rigorous checks on designs, forcing AI agents to prove compliance with exact standards and codes. It demands verifiable calculations, tracks risk quantification (like HAZOP/FMEA), and maps every requirement back to design evidence—no vague claims allowed.

## Overview
- **Category:** productivity
- **Price:** Free
- **Tags:** engineering, compliance, regulatory, standards, iso, asme, iec, safety, risk-assessment, quality, audit, prover, reasoning

## Description

Engineers know that 'it sounds right' doesn't cut it. When an agent spits out a design assessment, you need proof: specific code clauses, traceable math, and defined risk mitigation. This MCP forces the analysis through five critical stages of engineering scrutiny. You can use this tool to validate if a conclusion holds up against real-world standards—like checking pressure vessel designs against ASME BPVC or verifying functional safety per IEC 61508. It doesn't just check boxes; it demands that every claim is backed by an exact standard citation, verifiable inputs and methods for calculations, specific jurisdictional codes (AHJ), a structured risk assessment, and a full requirement-to-evidence matrix. Integrating this through Vinkius means your agent can perform deep technical due diligence before you trust the output. It’s about turning opinion into quantifiable fact.

## Tools

### validate_engineering_reasoning
Runs a full, multi-point audit on any engineering claim, verifying standards citations, math proof, jurisdiction, risk quantification, and compliance traceability.

## Prompt Examples

**Prompt:** 
```
We need a carbon steel pressure vessel for 450°F service at 600 psig. Verify it meets code requirements.
```

**Response:** 
```
STANDARD_MISAPPLIED — 'meets code requirements' without naming the code. Which code governs? ASME BPVC Section VIII Div. 1 or Div. 2? Which edition? Who is the AHJ? What material spec (SA-516 Gr. 70)? Calculate required thickness per UG-27 with corrosion allowance before claiming compliance.
```

**Prompt:** 
```
Evaluate the SIL rating for the emergency shutdown valve on the reactor feed line. The HAZOP identified loss of containment as a consequence.
```

**Response:** 
```
COMPLIANCE_PROVEN — SIL 2 per IEC 61508:2010 with SIF architecture 1oo2, PFDavg = 3.2×10⁻³ within SIL 2 range (10⁻² to 10⁻³), proof test interval 12 months, diagnostic coverage 92%. Risk graph per IEC 61511 confirms SIL 2 target. Compliance traced through SRS to validated test results.
```

**Prompt:** 
```
The building structural design uses steel moment frames. Verify seismic compliance for a site in Los Angeles.
```

**Response:** 
```
CALCULATION_GAP — Seismic design for LA (Seismic Design Category D/E) requires specific calculations: site class per ASCE 7-22 Ch. 11, spectral accelerations Ss and S1 from USGS, response modification R for SMF (R=8), drift limits per ASCE 7-22 §12.12. Show the base shear calculation V = CsW.
```

## Capabilities

### Validate Code Compliance
Checks if an engineering design adheres to specific, mandatory standards and codes.

### Require Calculation Proof
Forces the agent to provide verifiable math: inputs, formulas, results, and safety margins for all claims of adequacy.

### Define Jurisdiction
Ensures the assessment specifies which governing code, authority having jurisdiction (AHJ), and edition applies locally.

### Quantify Hazard Risk
Runs structured risk analysis using methods like HAZOP or FMEA to determine severity and likelihood of failure.

### Trace Compliance Evidence
Creates a matrix that maps every required code requirement directly to the design feature or test that satisfies it.

## Use Cases

### Reviewing a New Pressure Vessel Design
A mechanical engineer asks their agent to review a new vessel. The agent runs validate_engineering_reasoning, which immediately flags the lack of material specification (SA-516 Gr. 70) and demands the required thickness calculation per UG-27 before approval.

### Auditing Emergency Shutdown Systems
A safety manager needs to prove compliance for an ESD valve. The agent runs validate_engineering_reasoning, which requires a detailed SIL rating (e.g., IEC 61508:2010), specifying the PFDavg and proof test interval.

### Validating Building Seismic Resilience
A structural engineer submits preliminary plans for LA. The agent uses validate_engineering_reasoning to reject the plan until specific calculations are provided, citing ASCE 7-22 and base shear formulas (V = CsW).

## Benefits

- Stops vague claims dead in their tracks. The validate_engineering_reasoning tool demands specific standard references (e.g., 'ASME BPVC Section VIII, Div. 1, UG-27, 2023 Ed.'), eliminating the useless phrase 'per industry standards.'
- It forces calculation evidence, meaning if an agent says a design is adequate, you get inputs, the formula used, the numerical result, and the safety factor—not just an opinion.
- The MCP handles jurisdictional specificity. It knows that a code for Texas differs from one in Germany; it requires you to cite the specific AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) and local amendments.
- Risk analysis moves beyond 'risks are acceptable.' The tool makes you run HAZOP, FMEA, or FTA, requiring severity classification, likelihood estimation with basis, and clear residual risk determination.
- It builds a compliance matrix. This function forces traceability by linking every single code requirement ID to the specific design feature or test that satisfies it.

## How It Works

The bottom line is, it stops your AI agent from making vague claims; it forces the output to meet professional engineering rigor.

1. Provide your agent with the engineering assessment or design concept you need validated.
2. The MCP runs structured checks, demanding specific evidence for standards citations, calculations, jurisdiction, and risk quantification (HAZOP/FMEA).
3. It returns a detailed report pointing out any structural deficiencies, such as missing calculation steps or untraced compliance requirements.

## Frequently Asked Questions

**What standards are supported by this prover?**
It covers global regulatory and engineering standards, including ISO 9001/14001/45001 for quality/safety, IEC 61508/ISO 26262 for functional safety, ASME BPVC and API standards for pressure equipment, Eurocodes, and NFPA.

**How does the prover handle jurisdiction differences?**
It validates that calculations and standard references specify the governing jurisdiction, the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ), the applicable code edition year, and any local amendments.

**Can the prover verify calculations?**
Yes, it requires explicit verification of design inputs, analytical methods, mathematical calculations, safety factor criteria, and safety margins rather than qualitative assertions of adequacy.

**How does using `validate_engineering_reasoning` enforce compliance traceability?**
It demands a requirement-to-evidence matrix for any claim of compliance. You must map every required code ID to the specific design feature, analysis, or test that satisfies it. This process eliminates vague claims and proves adherence.

**What kind of structured data does `validate_engineering_reasoning` need for risk quantification?**
It requires formal hazard identification methods like HAZOP, FMEA, or FTA to function. You must provide the severity classification, likelihood estimate with a basis, and the resulting residual risk after mitigation actions.

**If multiple standards apply, how does `validate_engineering_reasoning` handle conflicts?**
The MCP forces you to list every governing standard and specify which exact clause applies to the design element. This process identifies potential conflicting requirements across different codes so your team can resolve them.

**What does the output of `validate_engineering_reasoning` mean if it finds a deficiency?**
It flags structural deficiencies, pinpointing exactly which standard or requirement is unmet. The response details the missing evidence, calculation gap, or non-compliant clause that needs immediate correction.

**When should I integrate `validate_engineering_reasoning` into my design workflow?**
Call this MCP immediately after drafting your initial assessment but before finalizing any conclusions. Running it early forces your team to build verifiable calculations and traceable evidence from the project's outset.