Qor report

QoR Report — Design-Health Scorecard

A QoR (Quality of Results) report is a measurement task, not a fix task. The goal is one page that tells the user, with grades and hard numbers, how healthy the design is across six axes — Timing, Area/Utilization, Power, Congestion, Clocking, and Rule-cleanliness (DRC/methodology/CDC) — and what the single most important problem is. Every number on the scorecard must come from a fresh tool call against the currently open design, not from memory, not from a prior run, and not inferred.

When to use

• User says "design health", "qor", "quality of results", "scorecard", "how good is my design", "rate my implementation", "is this ready for signoff/tapeout".
• After a run (synthesis or implementation) completes and the user wants a single consolidated read instead of opening ten separate reports.
• Before a design review or sign-off gate, to get an objective snapshot.
• To compare two strategies/checkpoints: run this skill on each and diff the scorecards.

When NOT to use

• The user wants you to FIX something (close timing, reduce area, cut power, relieve congestion). This skill diagnoses and grades only. Hand off to the timing-closure / area / power / congestion remediation skills. This skill may recommend those as next steps but must not apply constraints, strategy changes, or RTL edits.
• No design is built yet (no completed synthesis or implementation run). A scorecard on an empty/elaborated-only design is meaningless. Build first (see Prerequisites), or state clearly that you can only report a "pre-build" status.
• The user wants deep root-cause on one axis (e.g. "why is path X failing"). Use the focused report tools / timing-closure skill, not a one-page summary.
• Functional correctness questions (does the RTL do the right thing). That is simulation/lint territory, not QoR.

Prerequisites (verify first)

Do these in order. Do not skip — a scorecard built on the wrong design stage is worse than no scorecard.

1. MCP/Vivado alive. Call test_connection. If it fails, stop and tell the user to open Vivado and start the Tcl server (TCP:9999). Optionally vivado_version to record the tool version on the scorecard.
2. A project is open. Call get_project_info. Capture part/device, project name, and top module — these go in the scorecard header. If no project is open, stop and ask the user to open_project.
3. Determine the design stage — this decides what the scorecard can claim. Call get_run_status.
   • Implementation complete (placed + routed): full scorecard is possible; all six axes are signoff-grade. This is the preferred input.
   • Synthesis complete only: you can grade Timing (estimated), Area, and Clocking, but you must label them ESTIMATE / pre-route. Power and congestion are not trustworthy. State this explicitly.
   • Nothing built: STOP. Offer to build (next step) or report pre-build only.
4. Open the correct in-memory design so the report tools have data:
   • If implemented: open_implemented_design.
   • If synthesized only: open_synthesized_design.
   • If nothing built and the user agrees to build, kick off a build with the async pattern (implementation runs are multi-minute): run_implementation_async, then poll get_run_status until complete, then open_implemented_design. (Use run_synthesis_async + poll if the user only wants a synthesis-stage card.) Never block on a synchronous multi-minute call when an async + poll path exists.
5. Record the stage label ("post-route signoff" vs "post-synth estimate") at the top of the scorecard. Every grade inherits this caveat.

Methodology (gather → grade → report)

This skill is single-pass and read-only. There is no fix loop. The loop, if any, is only "build if not built, then measure". Collect each axis's evidence with the listed tool, grade it against the rubric, then assemble the one-pager.

1. Timing

• report_timing_summary — the authoritative WNS/TNS/WHS/THS, failing endpoint count, and number of timing-violating paths across all clocks.
• extract_timing_metrics — structured WNS/TNS/TPWS and per-clock margins for the scorecard table (easier to parse than the raw summary).
• If WNS < 0 or the user wants detail, report_worst_timing_paths (top N) to name the worst path and its clock — but only to report it, not to fix it.
• check_timing — flags unconstrained / problematic timing setup (no-clock, partial input/output delays, combo loops). A design that "meets timing" with large unconstrained sections is a false green; surface the unconstrained count prominently.

2. Area / Utilization

• report_utilization — LUT, FF, CARRY, DSP, BRAM, URAM, IO percentages.
• report_utilization_hierarchical — only if a module is over budget and the user wants to know which block is the hog (still reporting, not fixing).
• Record both absolute counts and % of device. The % drives the grade; the hierarchy explains it.

3. Power

• report_power (post-implementation only for a real number) — total on-chip watts, dynamic vs static split, thermal margin / junction temp, and the confidence level Vivado reports (High/Medium/Low). A "Low confidence" power number must be labeled as such on the card — do not present it as signoff power.
• If synthesis-stage only, mark power N/A (requires implementation) rather than reporting a misleading estimate.

4. Congestion (placement/routing pressure)

• report_congestion (post-place/route only) — per-direction congestion levels and the worst window. This is the leading indicator of why routing/timing struggle.
• report_route_status — routed vs unrouted/partially-routed nets, conflicts. Any non-zero unrouted or conflict count is a hard fail on the routing axis; the design is not actually built even if other numbers look fine.

5. Clocking

• report_clock_utilization — BUFG/MMCM/PLL usage and headroom.
• get_all_clocks / report_clock_networks — confirm every intended clock exists and is driven. A primary clock that Vivado did not create (typo'd create_clock) silently makes huge swaths of logic unconstrained — cross-check against the check_timing unconstrained finding from axis 1.
• report_clock_interaction — for multi-clock designs, which clock pairs are related/unrelated/asynchronous, so the timing grade can be read in context.

6. Rule-cleanliness (DRC / methodology / CDC)

• report_drc — design-rule violations. Categorize by severity. Any Error-level DRC is a hard fail for signoff.
• report_methodology — methodology (TIMING-*, etc.) checks that DRC misses; these are the strongest signal that a green timing number is real vs accidental.
• report_cdc — clock-domain-crossing safety. CDC criticals are a signoff blocker even when timing/area/power are perfect. (Run on the synthesized or implemented design; report counts by severity.)

7. Suggestions (Vivado's own QoR opinion)

• report_qor_suggestions — Vivado's built-in QoR analysis and recommendations. Include the top suggestions verbatim as "Vivado recommends", clearly separated from your own grading. Do not auto-apply any suggestion.
• report_design_analysis — complexity/congestion/timing characterization to back up the grades with second-source evidence where available.

8. Assemble the one-pager

Collapse the evidence into the scorecard (see Output). Compute an overall verdict from the worst axis, not the average — a single Error DRC or an unrouted net caps the whole design at FAIL regardless of how good timing looks.

Grading rubric (symptom → grade → meaning)

Grade each axis PASS / MARGINAL / FAIL using post-route numbers. Thresholds are engineering defaults; state them on the card so the user can recalibrate for their device/process.

Axis	PASS (green)	MARGINAL (amber)	FAIL (red)	Source tool
Timing (setup)	WNS ≥ 0 and 0 unconstrained paths	0 ≤ WNS < ~5% of period, or WNS≥0 but unconstrained paths exist	WNS < 0 (TNS < 0)	report_timing_summary, extract_timing_metrics, check_timing
Timing (hold)	WHS ≥ 0	WHS ≥ 0 small margin	WHS < 0 (THS < 0)	report_timing_summary
Utilization	every resource < 80%	any resource 80–90%	any resource > 90% (or any over 100% = won't fit)	report_utilization
Power	within thermal budget, confidence High/Med	near thermal limit, or Low confidence	exceeds thermal/junction limit	report_power
Congestion	levels low (≤ ~level 4 / Vivado's "low")	medium congestion windows	high congestion / unroutable region	report_congestion
Routing	100% routed, 0 conflicts	— (routing is binary)	any unrouted net or conflict	report_route_status
Clocking	all clocks created+driven, clock-region/BUFG headroom OK	tight BUFG/MMCM headroom	missing/undriven clock, or over-subscribed clocking	report_clock_utilization, get_all_clocks, check_timing
DRC / methodology	0 Errors, warnings reviewed	Warnings only	any Error-severity DRC, or TIMING-* methodology error	report_drc, report_methodology
CDC	0 Critical, 0 unsafe	warnings/cautions only	any Critical / unsafe crossing	report_cdc

Overall verdict = the worst single axis. Any FAIL ⇒ overall NOT READY FOR SIGNOFF. All PASS ⇒ HEALTHY. Mix of PASS/MARGINAL ⇒ CONDITIONAL — review amber items.

Build-if-needed loop (the only loop) + STOP conditions

This skill does not iterate on fixes. The only loop is producing a valid input:

Loop:
  status = get_run_status
  if implementation complete  -> open_implemented_design ; MEASURE ; STOP
  if synthesis complete only  -> ask: want post-synth ESTIMATE card, or build impl?
       - estimate card        -> open_synthesized_design ; MEASURE (labeled estimate) ; STOP
       - build impl           -> run_implementation_async ; poll get_run_status ; (next loop)
  if nothing built            -> ask user to build; if yes run_synthesis_async/run_implementation_async + poll
  if a build is RUNNING        -> poll get_run_status (async pattern); do not start another run

Hard STOP conditions (stop and hand back to the human):

• A requested build errors (get_run_status reports failure) — surface get_implementation_warnings / get_synthesis_warnings and stop. Do not retry blindly or change strategy to force a pass.
• Any Error-severity DRC, unrouted net/conflict, or CDC Critical is found — the scorecard is complete (it correctly reports FAIL); stop, do not "fix" it to make the card green.
• Evidence is internally inconsistent (e.g. timing summary says met but report_route_status shows unrouted nets) — report the contradiction and stop; do not paper over it.
• The user only wanted a report — once the one-pager is delivered, STOP.

Safety rails (do not violate)

• Read-only. This skill measures and grades. It MUST NOT call set_false_path, set_multicycle_path, set_max_delay, set_clock_groups, waive_lint_violation, set_synthesis_strategy, set_implementation_strategy, or edit RTL/constraints. The only allowed mutating action is building the design itself (run_synthesis_async / run_implementation_async) and only with the user's agreement.
• No fake-pass / no green-washing. Never waive a DRC, false-path a violation, or suppress a CDC/methodology finding to improve a grade. If a violation could be real, it stays on the card as a FAIL. Hiding a real problem to produce a prettier scorecard is the single worst failure mode of this skill.
• Evidence before claims. Every cell of the scorecard must trace to a tool call made this session, against the currently open design. Never reuse numbers from earlier in the conversation, never infer a number you didn't measure, never claim "timing met"/"DRC clean"/"CDC clean" without the fresh output in hand. Signoff-grade claims require post-implementation evidence; synthesis-stage numbers are necessary-but-not-sufficient and must be labeled ESTIMATE.
• State the stage and the caveats. A post-synth card must say so on every estimated axis. A "Low confidence" power number must say so. An unconstrained- paths count must be shown next to the timing grade.
• Smallest-safe-change framing for recommendations only. When you list "next steps", order them constraints/strategy before RTL, and present RTL/architectural changes as recommendations to the human, never as actions you will take here.
• Surface trade-offs, then stop. When you've reported the worst axis and the safe options to address it, present options + costs and hand back. Do not loop or thrash trying to drive a number green.
• Real tools only. Use only the tool names above. If the user wants something not covered by an available tool, say so plainly rather than inventing one.

Output

Deliver a single one-page scorecard in this shape (fill from fresh tool output; never leave a grade unsupported by a cited tool):

================ DESIGN HEALTH SCORECARD ================
Project : <name>        Top: <top_module>
Device  : <part>        Vivado: <version>
Stage   : POST-ROUTE (signoff) | POST-SYNTH (ESTIMATE)   <- caveat-bearing
Overall : HEALTHY | CONDITIONAL | NOT READY FOR SIGNOFF   <- = worst axis

AXIS            GRADE     KEY NUMBERS (with source)
-------------   -------   --------------------------------------------
Timing setup    PASS/..   WNS <ns>, TNS <ns>, <N> failing eps; <U> unconstrained
Timing hold     PASS/..   WHS <ns>, THS <ns>
Utilization     PASS/..   LUT <%>, FF <%>, DSP <%>, BRAM <%>, URAM <%>, IO <%>
Power           PASS/..   <W> total (dyn <W> / static <W>), Tj <C>, conf=<H/M/L>
Congestion      PASS/..   worst level <L> dir <H/V>; (post-route only)
Routing         PASS/..   <100%/partial> routed, <N> unrouted, <N> conflicts
Clocking        PASS/..   <N> clocks (all driven? y/n), BUFG <u/avail>, MMCM <u/avail>
DRC/Methodology PASS/..   <E> errors, <W> warnings (top: <code> ...)
CDC             PASS/..   <C> critical, <W> warning crossings

TOP PROBLEM   : <the single worst finding, one sentence, with its number>
VIVADO SAYS   : <top 1-3 report_qor_suggestions items, verbatim, not applied>
RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS (not performed here):
  1. <constraint/strategy-level option + cost>
  2. <RTL/architectural option + cost — recommendation only>
EVIDENCE      : <list the tool calls this card is built from>
========================================================

Rules for the output:

• If a number could not be measured at this stage, write N/A (requires implementation) — never guess.
• Mark every estimated value with (est.) when the stage is post-synth.
• The Overall verdict equals the worst axis, never an average.
• Keep it to one screen. Detail lives in the underlying reports; offer to drill into any axis on request (and route fixes to the appropriate remediation skill, not this one).