ASPICE + ISO 26262 knowledge, inside your AI coding tool

// Input
{ "severity": "S3", "exposure": "E4",
  "controllability": "C3" }

// Output
{ "asil": "D",
  "reference": "ISO 26262-3:2018, Table 4" }

// Input
{ "text": "The system shall be fast",
  "type": "software" }

// Output: score 2/10
{ "issues": ["Not quantifiable",
    "Missing acceptance criterion"] }

// Input
{ "processId": "SWE.1",
  "evidenceDescription": "..." }

// Output: findings per base practice
{ "gaps": ["BP5: No bidirectional trace"],
  "remediation": [...] }

// Input
{ "intent": "monitor tire pressure at 1 Hz,
  warn below 1.8 bar",
  "type": "safety", "asil": "B" }

// Output: draft + quality checklist + template
{ "draft": "The TPMS ECU shall...",
  "checklist": [7 criteria],
  "asilGuidance": [...] }

// Input
{ "requirementText": "...",
  "asil": "C" }

// Output
{ "methods": [
    { "method": "Walk-through",
      "recommendation": "Highly recommended" }] }

// Input
{ "parentAsil": "D",
  "childAsils": ["B", "C"] }

// Output
{ "valid": true,
  "independence": "Required",
  "reference": "ISO 26262-9, Clause 5" }

// Input
{ "processId": "SWE.3",
  "capabilityLevel": 2 }

// Output: base practices + work products
{ "basePractices": ["BP1..BP7"],
  "workProducts": ["17-08", ...] }

// Input
{ "description": "EPS system: 3 SWCs,
  AUTOSAR Classic, CAN/LIN...",
  "level": "software",
  "asil": "D" }

// Output: score + ASPICE findings
{ "score": 60, "findings": [
    { "ref": "SWE.2.BP1", ... }] }

// Input
{ "description": "CAN msg 0x120,
  8 bytes, 10ms cycle, E2E Profile 1",
  "level": "software" }

// Output: interface quality findings
{ "score": 75, "findings": [
    "Missing error handling spec"] }

// Input
{ "diagramType": "state_machine",
  "description": "Init->Running->
  Degraded->SafeState",
  "asil": "C" }

// Output: dynamic behavior findings
{ "score": 70, "ref": "SWE.2.BP4" }

// Input
{ "description": "PID controller:
  Kp, Ki, Kd params, 1ms cycle,
  anti-windup, MISRA C:2023",
  "asil": "D" }

// Output: detailed design findings
{ "score": 82, "ref": "SWE.3.BP1-BP7" }

// Input
{ "description": "12 modules, avg
  cyclomatic complexity 8, 15% coupling",
  "level": "software" }

// Output: 6 metric assessments
{ "metrics": [{ "name": "modularity",
    "status": "pass" }, ...] }

// Input
{ "description": "CPU 72% peak,
  RAM 85% used, CAN bus 65% load,
  10ms deadline met" }

// Output: resource budget analysis
{ "resources": [{ "type": "cpu",
    "status": "warning" }, ...] }

// Input
{ "description": "DOORS: SysReq->
  SwReq->Design->Code, bidirectional",
  "asil": "D" }

// Output: traceability assessment
{ "score": 100,
  "links": ["all traced"] }

// Input
{ "topic": "aspice_implementation",
  "question": "Our team spends 60%
  of time on docs. How do we fix this?" }

// Output: expert perspective + source traces
{ "position": "ASPICE is not the
  bottleneck. Manual compliance is.",
  "recommendations": [...],
  "anti_patterns": [...] }

// Input
{ "topic": "ai_agents_engineering" }

// Output: full framework + 8-step approach
{ "principles": ["Engineers build.
  AI documents. Compliance happens
  in the background.", ...],
  "agent_types": [7 agents] }

// Input
{ "topic": "config_management" }

// Output: what NOT to do
{ "anti_patterns": [
  "Excel-based config tracking",
  "Manual baseline assembly",
  "Chasing engineers for baselines
  after releases are done"] }