Image to mesh cad workflow

Image-to-Mesh CAD Workflow

A pragmatic pipeline for translating a 2D concept image into a parametric CAD model in Fusion 360 when manual spline-tracing produces visible deviation from intent.

---

⚠️ RECURRING TRAP — Read This Before Every Operation ⚠️

The single most expensive recurring failure mode in this workflow is falling back to spec/text descriptions for dimensions, positions, and orientations instead of measuring them from the mesh. This trap is sneaky because:

1. The spec document is psychologically authoritative (it's a written record). The mesh is just data that needs to be measured. So when in doubt, the spec wins by default.
2. User-feedback-driven adjustments ("make it bigger", "rotate it") feel like they should be applied directly. But the user's intent is almost always "match the mesh better" — which means measuring the mesh, not eyeballing.
3. After fixing one component (e.g., correcting the main-body orientation), other components built earlier in the wrong frame are silently invalid. They look fine in the timeline but are semantically wrong.

Real cost from one rotationally-symmetric speaker-housing session:

• 4 hours debugging a 180°-X-flip that mesh-audit would have surfaced in 30 seconds
• 3 cut-size iterations (50×40, 100×60, then learned the mesh actually has 122×50) — each took ~30 minutes plus user-correction wait time
• Inner cone left mis-oriented for an entire session because nobody re-validated it after the main-body fix
• One destructive 15mm fillet on a 6mm wall (volume 1255 → 566 cm³) because radius-vs-wall-thickness wasn't checked first

Real cost from a follow-up session:

• 3 wrong cone-position iterations (translation Z=-7 → -12 → -9 → -7.7) because the cut-window Z-range was estimated from spec docs (-7.7..-2.7) instead of measured from body edges (-8.3..-2.1 inner edge, -7.7..-2.7 outer edge — different per face due to wall curvature)
• Translation occ.transform2 = m silently reverted to a previous value (Z=-4.5 instead of the just-set Z=-9) because timeline recompute restored an older state — never verified post-set, user had to re-flag the wrong position
• → Maxim: "In constructions, always measure, never estimate." Applies to every dimension, position, and any value you just set.

This is THE anti-pattern. If you only remember one thing from this skill, remember this section.

The Correct Process (mandatory gates)

BEFORE every dimension / position / orientation decision:

GATE 1 — Measure from mesh:
  □ fusion mesh-audit "<MeshBody>" — bbox, wide-end, axis convention
  □ fusion mesh-audit "<MeshBody>" --height-cm <z> — angular features at specific Z
  □ fusion mesh-silhouette "<MeshBody>" — exact R-vs-Z profile
  □ For non-rotational features: write a slice-script that quantifies the feature

GATE 2 — Document measured values:
  □ Write down R(z), angular extents, Z ranges, etc. as concrete numbers
  □ Note any deviation from spec (mesh wins; spec is hypothesis)

GATE 3 — Map frames:
  □ mesh-frame → world-frame (via mesh import transform)
  □ world-frame → component-frame (via occurrence transform)
  □ Apply mapping to each measured number BEFORE using it in code

AFTER every component fix:

GATE 4 — Cross-component revalidation:
  □ For EVERY other component in the same design, re-audit position + orientation against mesh
  □ Bbox alone is insufficient — also check feature directionality (apex, concavity, asymmetric features)
  □ A component that was "correct" before another component's fix may now be wrong

AFTER every transform/set operation (e.g. occ.transform2 = m, sketch-point edit, parameter change):

GATE 4b — Post-set verification (the „measure don't estimate" maxim):
  □ Read the value back from Fusion with a separate eval call: e.g. tr = occ.transform2.translation; print(tr.z)
  □ Compute the resulting world-frame coordinate of the affected geometry (bbox.minPoint.z + tr.z)
  □ Confirm it matches the intended target value
  □ Reason: timeline-recompute, parametric-rebuild, and other-feature-side-effects can silently revert your set
  □ Cost from skipping this: 3 extra cone-position iterations because translation Z=-9 was silently reverted to Z=-4.5 between scripts; user had to flag the wrong position twice

WHEN user gives feedback:

GATE 5 — Don't adjust blindly:
  □ "Cut should be bigger" → run mesh-audit, don't guess a new size
  □ "Body is rotated" → run mesh vs solid axis comparison, don't guess the rotation
  □ "Edge should be smoother" → measure the local wall thickness; fillet radius MUST be ≤ wall thickness
  □ User intent = "match the mesh better"; the mesh is the answer source, not the user

Anti-patterns this skill exists to prevent

Anti-pattern	Why it bites	Correct alternative
Using spec dimensions verbatim	Spec is text-based hypothesis, mesh is geometric truth	Measure mesh first; treat spec as starting guess
Adjusting based on user verbal feedback	"Bigger" / "rotated" gives no exact number	Run mesh-audit, present measured value, then build
Trusting visual screenshots for size/angle	2D projections distort dimensions	Use bbox queries or measurement queries
Skipping cross-component revalidation	Components built in old frame become silently invalid	After ANY component fix, re-audit ALL related components
Falling back to spec when mesh-audit feels like extra work	The 30-second audit prevents 4-hour debug session	The audit IS the work; treat it as required scaffolding
Filleting without checking wall thickness	Radius > wall thickness destroys body	Always: r_fillet ≤ wall_thickness × 0.8
Running comprehensive mesh-audit in one big script	60k samples × 80 Z-bins × 36 angle-bins blocks the Fusion UI thread, hangs the bridge	Cap at ~20k subsamples; split per-region (cut zone, pedestal, top) into separate calls

---

When to use

• A concept image (sketch, render, photo) is the only design source
• Manual silhouette estimation has produced noticeable deviation (concave waist instead of convex curve, wrong proportions, etc.)
• The target part is rotationally symmetric — speaker housings, vases, lampshades, hubs, lenses, bottles
• Parametric editability is required (cannot just keep the mesh as-is)

When NOT to use

• The CAD geometry is fundamentally non-rotationally-symmetric (use cad-construction with manual sketches)
• The concept is already specified in numbers (use cad-construction directly)
• The mesh-fidelity-of-cutouts is more important than parametric flexibility (use Fusion's UI "Mesh → Convert to BRep", possibly after manual mesh-reduce)

Architecture

2D Image (PNG/JPG)
    ↓ (1) Tripo3D / Rodin / Meshy — image-to-3D AI
3D Mesh (STL, ~100k-1M triangles)
    ↓ (2) Fusion-MCP-Bridge import (Component.meshBodies.add)
MeshBody in Fusion (Direct-Modeling design)
    ↓ (3) Silhouette extraction (R vs Z, top-percentile-median per Z-bucket)
Spline control points (R, Z) in cm
    ↓ (4) Single-Revolve in Parametric design
BRep Solid Body (rotationally-symmetric outer form)
    ↓ (5) Standard parametric features (Cut, Shell, Pattern)
Final parametric component

Setup

Required:

• fusion-mcp-bridge skill + fusion CLI (separate skill; this skill depends on it)
• Browser access to Tripo3D (free tier sufficient for 2-3 generations) — alternatives: Rodin (hyperhuman.deemos.com), Meshy (meshy.ai), TripoSR (open-source local)
• For browser automation: claude-in-chrome MCP

Optional:

• Tripo3D API key for headless usage (skip browser automation)

The eight phases

Phase 0: Mesh-Frame Audit (do BEFORE any parametric build)

Run fusion mesh-audit immediately after import. This single command answers four questions that are otherwise discovered painfully across hours of failed iterations:

1. Which axis is the height-axis? (Z-up vs Y-up vs X-up — depends on source tool)
2. Is the wider end at the top or the bottom? (apex direction)
3. What is the angular position of features (cutouts, handles, asymmetric details)?
4. Does the mesh include parts that the parametric build assumes are separate? (e.g., Tripo3D often includes the base/pedestal in the mesh although the parametric solid will model it as a separate component)

fusion mesh-audit "Tripo3D-Mesh-Reference"
fusion mesh-audit "Tripo3D-Mesh-Reference" --height-cm -4   # explicit slice height
fusion mesh-audit "Tripo3D-Mesh-Reference" --json | jq      # machine-readable

Sample output:

Bounding box (cm):
  X: [  -8.58,    8.58]  size  17.15
  Y: [  -8.57,    8.57]  size  17.15
  Z: [ -19.50,   19.50]  size  39.00
Longest axis     : Z  (height of mesh)
Wide end         : low end of Z-axis  (R=8.04 cm low vs R=5.54 cm high)
→ Mesh is Z-up with apex at top. No transform needed.
Angular cutout candidates at sample height Z=-4.0 cm (R < 3.26 cm, avg R = 3.83 cm):
  ang [ 80°..170°]  min R = 1.82 cm  (10 bins)
  ang [260°..350°]  min R = 1.85 cm  (10 bins)

Key things to capture from the audit BEFORE building anything parametric:

Question	Where to look	Implication if wrong
Height-axis	Longest axis: <X/Y/Z>	All Z-coordinates in CAD calcs are wrong; rotate the occurrence first
Wide-end direction	Wide end: low/high end	Apex points wrong way; apply 180°-X-flip
Cutout angles	Angular cutout candidates ang [...]°	Parametric cuts placed at wrong angles around vertical axis
Pedestal included?	Wide-end R matches pedestal-OD spec	Mesh-Z=0 is NOT the main-body bottom — must measure explicitly

For meshes >100k vertices, mesh-audit subsamples to 50k by default (configurable via --max-samples). Larger meshes hit the HTTP-bridge timeout otherwise.

Phase 1: Image preparation

The AI mesh quality scales directly with image quality. Best inputs:

• Plain background (transparent or single-color, no scenery)
• Frontal view (no perspective foreshortening)
• Clear silhouette (no overlapping objects, no shadows touching the silhouette)
• Reasonable resolution (512×768 to 1024×1536 — Tripo handles up to 10MB)

Resize down if needed (sips -Z 800 input.png --out small.png on macOS) — AI doesn't need ultra-high-res for shape detection.

Phase 2: Mesh generation

Browser-automation approach (Tripo3D web UI):

1. Navigate to https://www.tripo3d.ai/app
2. Choose Tripo Lite (simpler interface)
3. Click + Single Image to open upload zone
4. Upload critical step — see "Browser-upload-permission-wall" pattern below
5. Click Generate (~25 credits free tier)
6. Wait 30-90s for generation
7. Click preview → opens model detail page
8. Set Format: stl
9. Click Download (~5 additional credits for STL conversion)

API approach (faster, headless): use Tripo3D API with key — more efficient for repeat work.

Phase 3: STL Import via fusion CLI

fusion mesh-import ~/Downloads/<file>.stl

This auto-handles:

• Direct-Modeling-Design switch (mesh-import requires it)
• Component.meshBodies.add(filepath, MeshUnits.MillimeterMeshUnit)
• ScaleFeature to bring the unitless Tripo mesh up to target size
• Z-flip transform (Tripo convention puts wider end at +Z; flip via 180° X-rotation)

Phase 4: Silhouette extraction

fusion mesh-silhouette "<mesh-body-name>" --bucket-cm 0.5 --out silhouette.json

Algorithm:

1. Read all vertex coordinates from meshBody.displayMesh.nodeCoordinates
2. For each vertex, compute R = sqrt(x² + y²) and bin by Z (default 0.5 cm buckets)
3. For each bucket: take top 5% R values' median as the outer-surface R (avoids tip-noise and mesh-outliers)
4. Output ordered list of (R, Z) points

Phase 5: Spline-Loft parametric build

In Fusion, with extracted points:

1. Sketch on xZConstructionPlane
2. Add sketchFittedSplines.add() with the (R, Z) control points
3. Add closing top arc to apex (use sphere_arc_params from lib_helpers.py)
4. Add closing bottom edge + axis edge
5. Single Revolve 360° around zConstructionAxis

Critical: profile-touches-axis workaround — Fusion rejects revolve profiles where the boundary lies exactly on the rotation axis. Use a small offset (EPS = 0.005 cm = 0.05 mm) for axis-points. This creates a tiny invisible bore through the center; negligible but unblocks the operation.

Phase 6: Cuts + Shell

Standard fusion-mcp-bridge patterns apply:

• Cut-before-Shell sequence
• Tool-Body + Combine-Cut pattern
• Boolean-union of multi-bodies before any cut

For cutouts derived from the mesh:

• Phase 6a (this skill): Simple ovals/rectangles via Tool-Body extrude — works for first iteration but loses fidelity to mesh-cutout shapes
• Phase 6b (Wave-2): Mesh-slicing for exact cutout boundary — see "Cutout-fidelity-Wave-2" pattern below

Phase 7: Validation

Visual comparison (mesh vs. parametric body in same scene):

• fusion view front + screenshot
• Param-Solid should overlay mesh ±2% in radius at all Z

Component summary:

• fusion components — confirm body counts and Z positions

Browser-upload-permission-wall pattern

Chrome extensions (claude-in-chrome MCP) cannot directly call setFileInputFiles on web file-inputs (CDP returns "Not allowed"). Workaround:

1. Start a local CORS-enabled HTTP server in the directory containing the file
2. Use JavaScript fetch + DataTransfer in the page context to load the file and assign to the file-input

Server (Python stdlib only):

import http.server, socketserver, os, sys

class CORSHandler(http.server.SimpleHTTPRequestHandler):
    def end_headers(self):
        self.send_header('Access-Control-Allow-Origin', '*')
        super().end_headers()

os.chdir(sys.argv[1])
PORT = int(sys.argv[2])
with socketserver.TCPServer(("127.0.0.1", PORT), CORSHandler) as httpd:
    httpd.serve_forever()

Browser-side JS:

const r = await fetch('http://127.0.0.1:8889/file.png');
const blob = await r.blob();
const file = new File([blob], 'file.png', {type: 'image/png'});
const input = document.querySelector('input[type="file"]');
const dt = new DataTransfer();
dt.items.add(file);
input.files = dt.files;
input.dispatchEvent(new Event('change', {bubbles: true}));

This bypasses both the file-system-permission-wall and Mixed-Content blocking (Chrome treats 127.0.0.1 as secure origin).

Mesh source coordinate conventions (verify, don't assume)

Different image-to-3D tools output meshes in different coordinate systems. Never assume — run fusion mesh-audit (Phase 0 above) and read the actual axis. Common conventions seen in 2026:

Tool	Vertical axis convention	Apex direction	Notes
Tripo3D	Often Z-up but wider end at +Z (inverted vs CAD-typical)	Apex at -Z	The "Z-flip" historical fix; verify each generation, the convention has shifted
glTF / Three.js / Maya export	Y-up	Apex direction varies	fusion mesh-import does not auto-rotate Y-up to Z-up — manual transform required
Rodin (Hyperhuman)	Z-up, apex at +Z	Apex at top	No flip needed, but verify
Meshy	Variable per export option	—	Always audit
Fusion-CAD typical	Z-up, apex at top	Apex at +Z	The target convention

Choosing the right transform from audit output

# Case 1: Mesh is already Z-up with apex at top → identity, no transform
# (mesh-audit reports: "→ Mesh is Z-up with apex at top. No transform needed.")

# Case 2: Mesh is Y-up (glTF/Three.js convention) → rotate +90° around X to get Z-up
m = adsk.core.Matrix3D.create()
m.setCell(0, 0,  1.0)
m.setCell(1, 1,  0.0); m.setCell(1, 2, -1.0)  # original Y → -Z
m.setCell(2, 1,  1.0); m.setCell(2, 2,  0.0)  # original Z → +Y
occ.transform2 = m

# Case 3: Mesh is Z-up but apex at -Z (Tripo3D legacy convention) → 180° around X
m = adsk.core.Matrix3D.create()
m.setCell(1, 1, -1.0)  # flip Y
m.setCell(2, 2, -1.0)  # flip Z
occ.transform2 = m

# Case 4: Mesh is X-up (rare) → rotate -90° around Y
m = adsk.core.Matrix3D.create()
m.setCell(0, 0,  0.0); m.setCell(0, 2,  1.0)  # X → +Z
m.setCell(1, 1,  1.0)
m.setCell(2, 0, -1.0); m.setCell(2, 2,  0.0)  # Z → -X
occ.transform2 = m

fusion mesh-import applies Case 3 by default (--flip-z). Use --no-flip for Case 1 (already correct), or do the rotation manually for Cases 2/4.

Why this matters: human / CAD convention is Z-up

A mesh imported in Y-up convention will look correct in the viewport because Fusion's view-cube auto-orients to the data — but every Z-coordinate calculation in the parametric build will be wrong. Sketches placed on xYConstructionPlane will be perpendicular to what they should be; revolves around zConstructionAxis will rotate around the wrong axis.

Universal rule: target the parametric solid build at standard Z-up with apex at top. Transform the mesh to match this on import; don't try to make the parametric code match a non-standard mesh frame.

Cutout-fidelity Wave-2 pattern (mesh-slicing)

Simple ovals/rectangles as cut tools work for "Phase 1" approximation. For full mesh-cutout fidelity, slice the mesh at the cutout's central plane and extract the boundary:

def slice_mesh_at_y0(mesh_body, eps=0.05):
    """Return list of (x, z) points where mesh crosses Y=0 plane (cutout boundary)."""
    vertices = mesh_body.displayMesh.nodeCoordinates
    triangles = mesh_body.displayMesh.nodeIndices
    segments = []
    for i in range(0, len(triangles), 3):
        v0, v1, v2 = [vertices[triangles[i+j]] for j in range(3)]
        # For each edge, check if it crosses Y=0
        for a, b in [(v0,v1), (v1,v2), (v2,v0)]:
            if (a.y <= 0 <= b.y) or (b.y <= 0 <= a.y):
                if abs(b.y - a.y) < eps:
                    continue
                t = -a.y / (b.y - a.y)
                x = a.x + t * (b.x - a.x)
                z = a.z + t * (b.z - a.z)
                segments.append((x, z))
    return segments  # then connect into polylines + identify cutout-loop

Use the polyline as a Sketch in Fusion, then Cut-Extrude through. See references/mesh-slice.py (Wave-2).

Critical: Mesh is monolithic, Solid is modular

The single most important architectural pattern in this workflow. AI-generated meshes (Tripo3D, Rodin) are always one monolithic body — all features (cutouts, ribs, dome) live in one shared coordinate frame relative to the mesh's bounding box. The target parametric solid is typically modular — separate components for pedestal, main body, dome, internal cone — each with their own component-frame for assembly.

Failure mode without explicit mapping (real bug from a speaker-housing first iteration): Cutouts extracted at mesh-Z range [-7, 0] were applied as Cut at the same component-Z range in the modular main-body component. The cutouts ended up "too high in the body" because the main body's component-frame origin does NOT sit at the speaker's bottom — it sits at the pedestal/main-body junction. What was visually in the lower 1/4 of the monolithic mesh ended up in the lower 1/4 of the main-body component, which is the upper half of the actual speaker.

Correct workflow:

1. Define modular component structure first — decide where each component-frame origin sits relative to a global speaker-frame:

   pedestal:    world-Z = 0..11 cm
   main_body:   world-Z = 11..39 cm  (component origin at world-Z=11)
   inner_cone:  world-Z = 12..18 cm  (component origin at world-Z=12)
   

2. Establish coordinate mapping mesh-frame → world-frame → component-frame for every feature extracted
3. Identify which feature belongs to which component — a cutout at world-Z=15 belongs to main_body, not pedestal
4. Apply the feature in the correct component-frame with the correctly mapped Z value

Concrete example mapping:

def mesh_to_component(z_mesh, pedestal_height_cm, mesh_z_origin_offset=19.5):
    """Map a mesh-frame Z to the modular main-body component-frame."""
    # Step 1: mesh-frame to world-frame (Tripo's Z-flip + global offset)
    z_world = mesh_z_origin_offset - z_mesh  # if Tripo Z-up flipped
    # Step 2: world-frame to main-body component-frame (subtract pedestal height)
    z_main = z_world - pedestal_height_cm
    return z_main

# Mesh cutout at z_mesh = -3 cm → z_world = 22.5 cm → z_main = 11.5 cm

Skill rule: before applying any extracted feature to a modular component, write the mapping table explicitly:

Feature	mesh-Z	world-Z	which component	component-Z
Cutout center	-3.5	23.0	main_body	12.0
Top dome apex	19.5	0.0	top_cap	0.0
LED ring	-16.0	35.5	pedestal	35.5

This table is the first artifact of the workflow, before any Cut/Sketch operations. Without it, every feature placement is a coin-flip.

Verification: after applying a feature, take a screenshot comparing mesh and modular solid in the same scene. The feature should overlay the corresponding mesh region exactly. If it's offset, the mapping table is wrong — fix the table, not the position.

Two independent error classes (don't conflate them)

The mapping bug above is one of two independent error classes that both produce "feature in wrong place" symptoms. They must be diagnosed and fixed separately:

Class A: Vertical offset (Z-coordinate mapping)

• Symptom: cutout is at the right angle but at the wrong height (too high or too low)
• Root cause: mesh-frame Z-origin is not where you assumed (e.g., mesh includes the pedestal, so mesh-Z=0 is mid-speaker, not pedestal-bottom)
• Fix: fusion mesh-audit reads the actual wide-end position; re-derive mesh_z_origin_offset from measurement, not from spec
• This is the existing "Mesh is monolithic / Solid is modular" pattern above

Class B: Angular offset (rotation around vertical axis)

• Symptom: cutout is at the right height but at the wrong angle (pointing the wrong way)
• Root cause: the AI mesh generator rotated features by some arbitrary angle relative to the source image; or the source image was rendered from a slightly off-axis perspective; or the parametric build placed cutouts at design-spec angles (0°/180°) without checking mesh actual angles
• Fix: fusion mesh-audit --height-cm <z> reads the actual angular cutout positions from the mesh; rotate the parametric cut sketch (or the host construction plane) by the difference

Real example from a speaker-housing build:

• Design spec said: side ports at +Y (90°) and -Y (270°)
• Tripo3D mesh actually has them at 125° and 305° (35° clockwise rotation)
• A solid-modular build using spec angles produces visibly misaligned cutouts vs mesh
• The fix is not to rebuild the mesh, but to either:
  1. Apply a 35° Z-rotation to the cutout sketch, OR
  2. Apply a 35° Z-rotation to the mesh occurrence so design-spec angles align with what's visible
• Choice depends on which "ground truth" you want — design-spec angles vs visible-mesh angles

The user/designer decides which is canonical. The skill's job is to surface the discrepancy, not silently pick one.

Anti-patterns

• Estimating spline points by eye from concept image — exactly what this skill prevents. Use mesh extraction instead.
• Skipping Phase 0 mesh-audit — leads to 4-hour debug sessions chasing wrong-axis bugs that a 30-second audit would have surfaced immediately.
• Direct mesh-to-BRep conversion via API for high-poly meshes — Fusion API rejects mesh-reduce on transformed bodies. Use UI manually if needed, after reducing in MeshLab/Blender first.
• Skipping the orientation check — every image-to-3D tool has its own convention; verify with fusion mesh-audit instead of assuming the historical Tripo Z-flip is still valid.
• Trusting design-spec angles for cutout positioning — the AI mesh generator may rotate features arbitrarily relative to source-image axes. Always extract actual angular positions from mesh via fusion mesh-audit --height-cm <z>.
• Iterating over all vertices of a 500k-tri mesh in a synchronous Python script — exceeds HTTP-bridge timeout (60s default). Subsample to ≤50k vertices for any analysis script; the CLI handles this automatically with --max-samples.
• Single huge JS injection for image-upload — keep base64 inline payloads under ~50 KB; use the CORS-server-fetch pattern instead.
• Forgetting profile-axis-offset (EPS=0.005) — Fusion rejects axis-touching revolve profiles silently with "profile intersects axis" error.

Handover checklist

Before declaring an image-to-mesh-CAD workflow complete:

• fusion mesh-audit run after import — output captured in project doc as Lesson Learned (axis convention, wide-end direction, cutout angles, included sub-components)
• Mesh imported with correct orientation (transform chosen from audit output, not assumed)
• Mesh scaled to real-world target dimensions
• Silhouette extracted with reasonable point count (5-15 control points)
• Parametric body matches mesh outline ±2% radius at sample Z values
• Cutouts at correct Z range AND angle (verify both via mesh-audit, not just visual)
• Mapping table (mesh-frame → world-frame → component-frame) documented before any cuts applied
• Standard fusion-mcp-bridge handover checklist also passed
• Mesh component (00-Mesh-Reference) hidden or deleted before STL export

Tool comparison (2026-05 snapshot)

Tool	Strength	Free tier	API
Tripo3D	Clean topology, good outline detection	~10 generations/month	Yes (paid)
Rodin (Hyperhuman)	Sculpture meshes, clean wires	With watermark	Yes
Meshy	Production-grade meshes	200 free credits	Yes
TripoSR (local)	Free, open-source, MPS/CUDA	Unlimited	N/A
Luma Genie	Fast, good UX	Yes	No

Default choice: Tripo3D for first iteration. Switch to Rodin if topology too noisy.

Related

• fusion-mcp-bridge — bridge setup, API patterns, recovery — required dependency
• mechanical-design-principles — convex-profile validation rule applies to mesh-derived splines too
• cad-construction — overall CAD workflow this skill plugs into
• <your-projects>/fusion360-mcp-bridge/cli/ — fusion mesh-import and fusion mesh-silhouette CLI