agentsclimarketplace

Numerical stability

Skill HeshamFS/materials-simulation-skills/skills/core-numerical/numerical-stability

Analyze numerical stability for time-dependent PDE simulations — check CFL and Fourier criteria, perform von Neumann stability analysis, detect stiffness, evaluate matrix conditioning, and recommend explicit vs implicit time-stepping schemes. Use when selecting time steps, diagnosing numerical blow-up or solver divergence, checking convergence criteria, or evaluating scheme stability for advection, diffusion, or reaction problems, even if the user doesn't explicitly mention "stability" or "CFL."From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add HeshamFS/materials-simulation-skills --skill numerical-stability

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • runs commandsInstructs the agent to run 8 commands, including `python3 scripts/cfl_checker.py --dx 0.01 --dt 1e-4 --diffusivity 1.0 --dimensions 2 --json` and 7 more.

SKILL.md

13.7 KB, ~3.3k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Numerical Stability

Goal

Provide a repeatable checklist and script-driven checks to keep time-dependent simulations stable and defensible.

Requirements

  • Python 3.10+
  • NumPy (for matrix_condition.py and von_neumann_analyzer.py)
  • See scripts/requirements.txt for dependencies

Inputs to Gather

InputDescriptionExample
Grid spacing dxSpatial discretization0.01 m
Time step dtTemporal discretization1e-4 s
Velocity vAdvection speed1.0 m/s
Diffusivity DThermal/mass diffusivity1e-5 m²/s
Reaction rate kFirst-order rate constant100 s⁻¹
Dimensions1D, 2D, or 3D2
Scheme typeExplicit or implicitexplicit

Decision Guidance

Choosing Explicit vs Implicit

Is the problem stiff (fast + slow dynamics)?
├── YES → Use implicit or IMEX scheme
│         └── Check conditioning with matrix_condition.py
└── NO → Is CFL/Fourier satisfied with reasonable dt?
    ├── YES → Use explicit scheme (cheaper per step)
    └── NO → Consider implicit or reduce dx

Stability Limit Quick Reference

PhysicsNumberExplicit Limit (1D)Formula
AdvectionCFLC ≤ 1C = v·dt/dx
DiffusionFourierFo ≤ 0.5Fo = D·dt/dx²
ReactionReactionR ≤ 1R = k·dt

Multi-dimensional correction: For d dimensions, diffusion limit is Fo ≤ 1/(2d).

Script Outputs (JSON Fields)

ScriptKey Outputs
scripts/cfl_checker.pymetrics.cfl, metrics.fourier, recommended_dt, stable
scripts/von_neumann_analyzer.pyresults.max_amplification, results.stable
scripts/matrix_condition.pyresults.condition_number, results.is_symmetric
scripts/stiffness_detector.pyresults.stiffness_ratio, results.real_part_stiffness_ratio, results.imag_dominated, results.stiff, results.recommendation, results.warning

Workflow

  1. Identify dominant physics (advection vs diffusion vs reaction)
  2. Run CFL checker with scripts/cfl_checker.py
  3. Compare to limits and adjust dt if needed
  4. Check stiffness with scripts/stiffness_detector.py if multiple scales
  5. Analyze custom schemes with scripts/von_neumann_analyzer.py
  6. Check conditioning with scripts/matrix_condition.py for implicit solves
  7. Document the stability verdict and recommended time step

Conversational Workflow Example

User: My phase-field simulation is blowing up after 100 steps. I'm using explicit Euler with dx=0.01, dt=1e-4, and diffusivity D=1.0.

Agent workflow:

  1. Check stability criteria:
    python3 scripts/cfl_checker.py --dx 0.01 --dt 1e-4 --diffusivity 1.0 --dimensions 2 --json
    
  2. Interpret results:
    • Fourier number: Fo = 1.0 × 1e-4 / (0.01)² = 1.0
    • 2D limit: Fo ≤ 0.25
    • Violation: Fo = 1.0 > 0.25, unstable!
  3. Recommend fix:
    • Reduce dt to 2.5e-5 (the tool's recommended_dt, giving Fo = 0.25)
    • Or increase dx, or switch to implicit

Pre-Simulation Stability Checklist

  • Identify dominant physics and nondimensional groups
  • Compute CFL/Fourier/Reaction numbers with cfl_checker.py
  • If explicit and limit violated, reduce dt or change scheme
  • If stiffness ratio > 1000, select implicit/stiff integrator
  • For custom schemes, verify amplification factor ≤ 1
  • Document stability reasoning with inputs and outputs

CLI Examples

# Check CFL/Fourier for 2D diffusion-advection
python3 scripts/cfl_checker.py --dx 0.1 --dt 0.01 --velocity 1.0 --diffusivity 0.1 --dimensions 2 --json

# Von Neumann analysis for custom 3-point stencil
python3 scripts/von_neumann_analyzer.py --coeffs 0.2,0.6,0.2 --dx 1.0 --nk 128 --json

# Detect stiffness from eigenvalue estimates
python3 scripts/stiffness_detector.py --eigs=-1,-1000 --json

# Check matrix conditioning for implicit system
python3 scripts/matrix_condition.py --matrix A.npy --norm 2 --json

Error Handling

ErrorCauseResolution
dx and dt must be positiveZero or negative valuesProvide valid positive numbers
No stability criteria appliedMissing velocity/diffusivityProvide at least one physics parameter
Matrix not found: <path>Invalid pathCheck matrix file exists
Could not compute eigenvaluesSingular or ill-formed matrixCheck matrix validity

Interpretation Guidance

ScenarioMeaningAction
stable: trueAll checked criteria satisfiedProceed with simulation
stable: falseAt least one limit violatedReduce dt or change scheme
stable: nullNo criteria could be appliedProvide more physics inputs
Stiffness ratio > 1000Problem is stiffUse implicit integrator
Condition number > 10⁸Poorly-conditioned (status: poorly-conditioned)Preconditioning likely needed
Condition number > 10¹⁰Ill-conditioned (status: ill-conditioned)Use scaling/preconditioning

Conditioning thresholds assume IEEE double precision: solving loses roughly log10(κ) significant digits, and a matrix becomes numerically singular near κ ≈ 1/eps ≈ 4.5e15. The > 10⁸ / > 10¹⁰ cutoffs (matching matrix_condition.py status) leave ample margin; well-conditioned-for-double FEM matrices (κ up to ~10⁶–10⁷) report status: ok.

Verification checklist

Do not declare a scheme/time step "stable" until each applicable item below is satisfied with a recorded value from the scripts, not a mental estimate.

  • Ran cfl_checker.py --json and recorded metrics.cfl, metrics.fourier, and/or metrics.reaction against the reported limits.* (explicit defaults: CFL ≤ 1, Fo ≤ 1/(2d), R ≤ 1), with stable: true and the intended criteria present in criteria_applied.
  • Confirmed criteria_applied is non-empty and stable is not null — i.e. at least one physics parameter (--velocity/--diffusivity/--reaction-rate) was actually supplied so a real check ran, not a silent no-op.
  • Used the smallest grid spacing across all directions for --dx (anisotropic grids: smallest dx/dy/dz) and re-ran cfl_checker.py after any mesh refinement, since Fo ∝ dt/dx² makes the limit highly sensitive to dx.
  • If the chosen dt is below the limit, recorded the tool's recommended_dt (and the --safety factor used) so the margin to the stability boundary is explicit and reproducible.
  • For any custom/non-standard update stencil, ran von_neumann_analyzer.py --json and confirmed results.max_amplification ≤ 1 (stable: true); noted k_at_max and resolved any even-length-stencil warning.
  • For multi-scale systems, ran stiffness_detector.py --json and recorded real_part_stiffness_ratio, imag_dominated, and stiff; only chose BDF/Radau when stiff: true on the real-part ratio (not on magnitude alone) and there is no warning.
  • For implicit solves, ran matrix_condition.py --json and recorded condition_number and status; treated poorly-conditioned (>1e8) / ill-conditioned (>1e10) as a flag to scale/precondition before trusting the solve.

Common pitfalls & rationalizations

Tempting shortcutWhy it's wrong / what to do
"Implicit scheme, so any dt is fine."Unconditional stability is not accuracy. cfl_checker.py reports stable: true with relaxed (infinite) limits for --scheme implicit and even adds a note to "check accuracy" — a large dt still ruins temporal error. Size dt for accuracy, not just stability.
"It ran 100 steps without crashing, so the setup is stable."Late-time blow-up from round-off, conservation loss, or marginal Fo is common. Completion ≠ correctness — record metrics.fourier/metrics.cfl vs limits.* and confirm stable: true before trusting the run.
"The 1D Fourier limit is 0.5, so Fo ≤ 0.5 is safe."The explicit diffusion limit is Fo ≤ 1/(2d) — 0.25 in 2D, 0.167 in 3D. Pass the real --dimensions; cfl_checker.py tightens diffusion_limit automatically, and using 0.5 in 2D/3D is an instability.
"Stiffness ratio is huge, so use BDF/Radau."The magnitude stiffness_ratio is misleading for oscillatory/advective/Hamiltonian spectra. Check imag_dominated and real_part_stiffness_ratio: if imag_dominated: true the detector returns stiff: false with a warning — prefer symplectic/leapfrog or a CFL-sized A-stable scheme, not implicit stiff solvers.
"I tightened dt, so the old mesh's dt still works after refining dx."Fo ∝ dt/dx²: halving dx quadruples Fo. Reusing a pre-refinement dt reintroduces a violation. Recompute with cfl_checker.py after every mesh change.
"The matrix solved, so its conditioning is fine."A solve can return numbers while silently losing ~log10(κ) digits. Record condition_number/status from matrix_condition.py; poorly-conditioned/ill-conditioned means scale or precondition before trusting the result.

Security

Input Validation

  • dx, dt, and safety are validated as finite positive numbers before any computation; velocity, diffusivity, and reaction_rate, when supplied, are validated as finite
  • --dimensions is restricted to {1, 2, 3} (cfl_checker.py raises and exits 2 otherwise)
  • Comma-separated eigenvalue lists (--eigs) are capped at 10,000 entries and validated as finite numbers
  • Stencil coefficient lists (--coeffs) are capped at 10,000 entries and validated as finite floats

File Access

  • matrix_condition.py reads a single matrix file (.npy or text) specified by --matrix; no directory traversal beyond the given path
  • Matrix/Jacobian files are rejected if they exceed 500 MB before parsing (matrix_condition.py, stiffness_detector.py)
  • np.load() is called with allow_pickle=False to prevent arbitrary code execution via crafted .npy files (matrix_condition.py, stiffness_detector.py)
  • Scripts write only to stdout (JSON output); no files are created unless the agent explicitly uses the Write tool

Tool Restrictions

  • Read: Used to inspect script source, references, and user configuration files
  • Bash: Used to execute the four Python analysis scripts (cfl_checker.py, von_neumann_analyzer.py, matrix_condition.py, stiffness_detector.py) with explicit argument lists
  • Write: Used to save analysis results or generated reports; writes are scoped to the user's working directory
  • Grep/Glob: Used to locate relevant files and search references

Safety Measures

  • No eval(), exec(), or dynamic code generation
  • All subprocess calls use explicit argument lists (no shell=True)
  • Matrix dimension limit (100,000 per side) in matrix_condition.py prevents memory exhaustion
  • JSON output mode (--json) produces structured, parseable results without shell-interpretable content

Limitations

  • Explicit schemes only for CFL/Fourier checks (implicit is unconditionally stable)
  • Von Neumann analysis assumes linear, constant-coefficient, periodic BCs
  • Stiffness detection requires eigenvalue estimates from user. The stiff verdict is based on scale separation among genuinely decaying modes (Re(λ) < 0); the magnitude ratio is still reported as stiffness_ratio. Imaginary-axis-dominated spectra (oscillatory/advection/Hamiltonian) are flagged via imag_dominated and a warning, and are NOT classified as stiff — for those, prefer symplectic/leapfrog or an A-stable scheme sized by the CFL limit, not BDF/Radau.

References

  • references/stability_criteria.md - Decision thresholds and formulas
  • references/common_pitfalls.md - Frequent failure modes and fixes
  • references/scheme_catalog.md - Stability properties of common schemes

Version History

  • v1.2.2 (2026-06-24): Added a "Verification checklist" (7 evidence-based items tied to the four scripts' JSON outputs) and a "Common pitfalls & rationalizations" table (6 rows) to make stability verdicts reproducible and guard against false-confidence shortcuts
  • v1.2.0 (2026-06-23): Corrected the phase-field worked example (genuinely unstable Fo=1.0 with D=1.0); fixed eval case 1 Fourier value; reconciled conditioning thresholds and error-message docs with the scripts; real-part-based stiffness classification with imaginary-dominated detection; enforced documented input/file-size/dimension safeguards
  • v1.1.0 (2024-12-24): Enhanced documentation, decision guidance, examples
  • v1.0.0: Initial release with 4 stability analysis scripts

What ships with it: 11 files

67.7 KB alongside SKILL.md, 4 of them executable

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most research analysis skills give in ~3.3k tokens

Counted across 1,213 of the 2,113 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-09-06

  • Cite sources for every important claimin 47 of 1213, across 38 files
  • Separate facts from inferences and recommendationsin 21 of 1213, across 12 files
  • Write findings to a markdown filein 19 of 1213
  • Label every insight with a confidence levelin 18 of 1213, across 8 files
  • Read product marketing context before asking questionsin 18 of 1213, across 8 files
  • Rank themes by frequency and intensityin 16 of 1213, across 6 files
  • Establish research mode before proceedingin 16 of 1213, across 6 files
  • Segment survey responses by customer tier or tenurein 16 of 1213, across 6 files
  • Categorize support tickets before analyzingin 16 of 1213, across 6 files
  • Weight research sources from the last twelve monthsin 16 of 1213, across 6 files
  • Use at least five data points per segmentin 15 of 1213, across 5 files
  • Extract verbatim quotes for all research findingsin 15 of 1213, across 5 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • Identify dominant physics and nondimensional groups
  • Run cfl_checker.py to compute stability numbers
  • Compare results to stability limits
  • Adjust time step if stability limits are violated
  • Check stiffness using stiffness_detector.py for multiple scales
  • Analyze custom schemes using von_neumann_analyzer.py

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.