Tool for structured schematic design reviews before release

[OTO]

 Hi all,

  I’m building Audeet, a tool for structured schematic design reviews before routing / release.

  The problem I’m trying to solve is that many reviews still end up split across PDF comments, spreadsheets, email
  threads, and informal sign-off. The idea is to keep the review in one workflow: findings -> tasks -> approvals ->
  final review report.

  The current version is focused on electronics teams reviewing schematics, with:
  - structured review workflow
  - task-based findings
  - approval / sign-off roles
  - guest review access
  - exportable PDF review report / evidence

  Site:
  https://audeet.io

  It currently starts from the review package / schematic review workflow rather than deep native EDA integration, so
  A few questions I’d genuinely like feedback on:
  - How do you currently run schematic reviews before routing / release?
  - Is it still basically PDF + spreadsheet + email + tickets?
  - Is a formal review report / sign-off deliverable useful in your environment, or mostly unnecessary?
  - What would a tool like this need before it would be worth trying on a real project?

  If this is the wrong board, feel free to move it.

  I’ll stick around and answer questions.

[dobsonr741]

So you built an AI tool and want paying subscribers. Fair enough.

And yes, you have legitimate electronics design experience from before the AI wave, so the premise is not empty.

But the real test is not whether the tool sounds plausible. The real test is whether it materially reduces the engineer’s workload.

If the engineer is still the verifier, still the decision-maker, and still the one pushing tickets across the line to closed, then the work has not actually been reduced. It has only been rearranged.

[free_electron]

I use the native "Comment" feature in Altium.
- In schematic you can highlight a net, node, part in schematic, and attach a comment or task.
- In PCB you can highlight an object ( component, via, designator, trace, etc) and attach a comment.
- There is comment/task /state browser. Clicking on an item zooms to the affected sheet / document and highlights the object.
- The comment trail and state for an issue is preserved
- Tasks can be assigned to a specific user.
- issues have a lifecycle state.

since all this is stored in the project and is version controlled you have the full audit trail. it travels with the project.
you can use aviewer license (free) to add comments or you can use the web based portal.

very useful feature. no external tools needed.

[OTO]

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback.

This is not an AI tool. It does not claim to automatically detect errors or issues; it is simply a review platform. It is designed to be tool-agnostic and to distribute schematic reviews among team members based on their areas of expertise. The core idea is to assign review tasks across collaborators according to their specialties. It also requires reviewers to formally sign off, ensuring traceability and confirming that everything has been properly reviewed.
I have encountered too many schematic issues that were not due to poor reviews, but rather to a complete lack of review.

It is true that tools like Altium Designer allow this kind of workflow, but they do not enforce it. The goal here is to provide a tool that enforces the process and ensures traceability. I fully agree that if a team already has strong discipline and well-established processes, such a tool may be unnecessary. However, for teams working across various design tools and needing to enforce thorough reviews and full traceability, I believe it can be valuable. It provides centralized tracking of what has been done. In essence, it is more of a process and compliance tool. I understand it may seem unnecessary for individuals or small teams, but it can become a strong safeguard for larger, more regulated organizations.
Thank you again. I welcome criticism, and my goal is to confront this project with real-world feedback.

As for the paid features, they mainly cover the compliance aspects: PDF report export, traceability, and scalability. To be honest, I set it up this way initially, but it could eventually become open source. I originally built it for my own company, based on a personal need that I believed might be more widely shared. If it turns out not to meet broader needs, I will likely release it to the open-source community

[free_electron]

PDF files are not the way to go. It is an external storage system. Foreign tool. It does not travel with the design files. Also feeding back into the design is a problem. You need to make the tool work directly from withing the CAD GUI. People are wary of yet another program. It's another window that needs space somewhere on the screen(s). Clicking an issue means you have to go find it in the cad program so you can fix it, then use the external program again to mark it fixed. And then recreate a PDF file that has the fix in it ... you will be bombarded with multiple pdf files everytime there is a fix. if multiple people are working in parallel it will become a PDF storm...

Many companies use a version control system and store projects and all related files in a centralized storage system. that could be GovCloud or an on premise server. Anything pertaining to the project travels with the project and is contained in the project directory / workspace.
Make sure that your tool can write its data to such workspace. Having it outside the workspace would be a non-starter. Fragmented data is a nightmare.
As for enforcing : be prepared to meet a lot of resistance ! Make sure there is flexibility to do things out of order. as long as it all converges in the end it is fine.
For example: in Altium a part creation ticket can only be picked up by one librarian. There is no mechanism to hand off to someone else. The end result: nobody uses it. it is too rigid.
Make sure that gatekeepers do not become bottlenecks and the whole thing strands in delays and extra "approval" clicking. You will end up with people just clicking "approve" to get it off their plate.

[OTO]

Thank you for the constructive feedback. I actually agree with all the points you raised, just from a slightly different point of view.

The idea of this tool is precisely to enforce a rigid tool and a rigid process. It’s not meant to support an “agile” schematic review with back-and-forth during the review. The goal is to force a stop in the schematic design at a defined point (point A), then move to a review of a numbered data package. From there, all verification points must be reviewed and signed, with full traceability. This produces a first review report, and only from that report (PDF) do we go back to the schematic design phase. This loop continues until we reach a “clean” report.

I understand that this is slowing things down and that it doesn’t fit all company structures. The idea is really to enforce a process, a heavy one I agree, but one that does not allow anything to go untracked.

At the same time, the tool stays flexible and agnostic, which is why the PDF approach was chosen. In most cases, schematic PDFs are already exported with the rest of the project data (unless you go into deep CAD integrations with parsers).

Another important point is that the review is distributed to everyone, and verification tasks are created in advance with mandatory signatories depending on their expertise. This allows multiple points of view. In practice, if people don’t engage and don’t sign their points, then nothing is validated, the schematic cannot move forward, and the project is blocked. That’s intentional.

I also add that the tool mainly brings value as a centralized place to exchange on each verification point. You can have discussion threads, raise remarks, and track them directly where they belong, instead of spreading this across emails or other tools.

Finally, the tool is read-only regarding project data (schematic, BOM, etc.). It does not modify anything. There is no need for back-and-forth on the data itself, which I agree should stay centralized and versioned in the project environment. The tool only reads the data, and its only outputs are the review reports, referencing the documents that were reviewed.

That’s the overall philosophy of the tool.

[free_electron]

Things to consider : (this is coming from aerospace background)

- Data has to be encrypted and cannot be shared outside of a controlled environment. PDF's will have to be locked down with access control.
- the same goes for all comments and feedback. Make sure that you have the ability to store information on GovCloud. Many organizations demand Govcloud, and not only aerospace. Automotive and others want GovCloud too.
- Have access traceability. Log who access what and when.
- Ideally the PDF files are fingerprinted. The PDF file i get is different from the PDF file you get in terms of fingerprint. If the data leaks the fingerprint points directly to the leaker. PDF has the ability to do that. But you will need the official Adobe tools. You won't be able to use the freebies. This audit trail is very important.

You will have to build a generator tool than can interact with whatever CAD you are targeting. When the project is ready for review : make a frozen snapshot. When a user accesses the PDF is generated then and there, fingerprinted and timestamped and stored for posterity. You may want to use something like S4 or an Object lock/Bucket Lock as provided by AWS of Google Cloud. Access can be using signed URL with time expiration.

I have set up similar systems but only from the CAD perspective and workflow programming. Don't ask me how it works on the IT side. I now a tiny little bit there.