AUTOSAR Architecture Validation & Compliance Assistant
Validate AUTOSAR architecture designs for standard compliance and structural integrity
What You Can Do
You can validate AUTOSAR software architectures across multiple compliance dimensions—layer separation, component interfaces, port definitions, service interfaces, and communication semantics. The skill identifies structural violations, missing documentation artifacts, and compliance gaps early in the design phase, helping you catch issues before formal gates and functional safety audits. It generates architecture compliance reports and documentation needed for ISO 26262 functional safety reviews.
Features
verifies proper isolation between Application Layer, RTE, and BSW modules
checks port definitions, service interfaces, and communication semantics for correctness
validates cross-ECU communication configuration and RTE interactions
ensures artifact naming follows AUTOSAR standards and traceability rules
identifies gaps in interface specifications, design artifacts, and compliance evidence
audits state machines and mode-dependent behavior for AUTOSAR compliance
reviews Basic Software configuration against AUTOSAR layering requirements
produces structured documentation for ISO 26262 functional safety audits
Example Output
Example 1: Layer Violation Detection
✓ Application Layer: 10 SWCs validated ✓ RTE Configuration: 4 scheduling groups, 25 runnable mappings ⚠ Violation Found: SWC_Engine directly accesses CAN driver (BSW) — should use RTE service port ⚠ Missing: Port timing annotations on 3 periodic SWCs
Example 2: Compliance Report
AUTOSAR 4.2 Compliance Summary
- Reviewed 15 Software Components
- Interface Definitions: 12/15 complete (80%)
- Mode Management: 2/4 state machines properly annotated
- Communication Bindings: CAN configuration validated ✓
- Missing Artifacts: 3 interface specifications, 2 mode declarations
- Recommendation: Add interface timing contracts before RTE generation
Example 3: BSW Organization Assessment
✓ Com module: Properly layered, 24 signal mappings validated ✓ EcuM: State chart follows AUTOSAR 4.x standard ⚠ Memory layout: 2 BSW modules sharing RAM section (non-compliant) → Action: Refactor memory organization per AUTOSAR Memory Abstraction Layer rules
What's Included
- AUTOSAR_Validation_Assistant.md: core validation skill and compliance checking methodology
- Architecture_Review_Checklist: comprehensive AUTOSAR 3.x and 4.x compliance checklist (layer separation, interfaces, naming)
- Compliance_Report_Template: structured markdown template for ISO 26262 functional safety gate documentation
- SWC_Interface_Verification_Framework: step-by-step process for validating port definitions and service interactions
- BSW_Module_Organization_Guide: reference guide for proper Basic Software layering and configuration patterns
Who It's For
- AUTOSAR Architects — validating software architecture designs before specification sign-off
- Embedded Software Engineers — reviewing component layering and interface compliance
- Functional Safety Managers — gathering compliance evidence for ISO 26262 audits and safety gates
- ECU Integration Engineers — assessing multi-ECU communication topology and RTE configuration
- Legacy Code Refactoring Teams — identifying compliance gaps when migrating to AUTOSAR standards
Best For
- Pre-implementation architecture reviews of SWC designs
- Multi-ECU communication topology validation
- Compliance documentation generation for functional safety audits
- BSW module organization and layering assessment
- Interface specification completeness and correctness checking
You might also like
You can systematically analyze suspension geometry, load paths, and component interactions to validate design decisions and identify optimization opportunities. Claude acts as your collaborative design partner to map force distributions, explore how geometry changes affect performance characteristics, compare suspension architectures, and reconcile conflicting engineering constraints in independent double-wishbone, multi-link, and other suspension systems.
You can transform vague customer NVH complaints into actionable diagnostic protocols by systematically mapping vibration sources, transfer paths, and receiver responses. The framework guides you through symptom normalization, operational condition analysis, and isolation strategy development—reducing diagnostic iteration cycles and accelerating root cause identification across powertrain, chassis, interior, and aerodynamic domains.
You can pinpoint the exact source of sensor fusion failures—whether they stem from misaligned camera/LiDAR/radar extrinsic calibration, timestamp desynchronization, data validation gaps, or algorithmic issues. This skill decomposes multi-modal perception errors into sensor-specific contributions and generates quantifiable diagnostic reports that directly guide calibration and testing teams toward fixes rather than blind troubleshooting.
You can efficiently diagnose complex NVH concerns by working through a structured framework that correlates customer symptoms with potential powertrain failures. This skill helps you narrow diagnostic possibilities, recommend targeted testing sequences, distinguish between component failures and tuning issues, and substantiate warranty claims with technical evidence.
You can decode SAE J2012 standard CAN diagnostic trouble codes (P, B, C, and U codes) with manufacturer-specific extensions, analyze multi-frame fault sequences and temporal patterns across multiple modules, and generate structured diagnostic hypotheses that differentiate between electrical, communication, and algorithmic failures. This skill transforms raw DTC data into actionable investigation vectors, reducing diagnostic analysis cycles from hours to minutes while improving root cause accuracy.
You can quantify sensor fusion performance across object detection, classification, tracking, and localization using standardized metrics. The framework helps you identify systematic failure modes in diverse environmental conditions, document safety-critical gaps, and generate structured evidence packages for ISO 26262 and SOTIF compliance. This enables you to benchmark sensor configurations, define perception KPIs, and support regulatory submissions with rigorous performance documentation.
You can systematically investigate NVH complaints, conduct root cause analysis using transfer path analysis methodologies, plan and interpret diagnostic testing data, and develop evidence-based solutions across the full vehicle lifecycle. This framework guides you through multidisciplinary analysis—covering acoustics, mechanical dynamics, materials, and manufacturing variability—enabling faster problem resolution and more effective cross-functional communication with design, manufacturing, and supplier teams.
You can transform raw accelerometer data, sound pressure measurements, and frequency spectra into structured diagnostic insights. Claude helps you organize test data, interpret Campbell diagrams and waterfall plots, quantify source contributions through transfer path analysis, and correlate physical measurements with customer complaints. This systematic approach replaces intuitive troubleshooting with hypothesis-driven test plans and targeted solutions.