{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "builder_plan": {
    "scenario": "A workflow needs specialist review, but extra agents may add more cost than useful work.",
    "change": "Test the proposed division of work against a single-agent implementation.",
    "baseline": "One agent with the same tools and an equal total token and time budget.",
    "steps": [
      "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.",
      "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.",
      "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.",
      "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test."
    ],
    "measure": "Accepted outputs, coordination failures, wall-clock time, and total cost across all agents.",
    "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation."
  },
  "builder_review": null,
  "arxiv_id": "2610.10858",
  "title": "RFChipAgent: Multi-Agentic AI Flow for Analog/RF Chip Design",
  "summary": "The method replaces manual analog/RF circuit design steps (topology selection, schematic and testbench assembly, circuit sizing) with a multi-agent LLM pipeline combining multimodal RAG over engineering documents, a hybrid TPE/CMA-ES sizing optimizer, and a simulator-in-the-loop evaluation with a trust-scored results database. Adoption costs include access to a commercial process design kit (GF22FDSOI), circuit simulators, per-document FAISS infrastructure, and sustained LLM API usage, none of which serve an ML inference or training workload. It can fail through incorrect topology or schematic generation requiring expert human supervision, and its validation is limited to a single 60 GHz LNA family, so generality across circuits and processes is unestablished.",
  "rationale": "This is electronic design automation for analog/RF integrated circuits, a domain outside the reader's AI/ML production work, and it requires chip design tooling and foundry PDK access the reader does not have or need.",
  "technique": "Multi-agent LLM flow for analog/RF chip design automation",
  "family": "orquestracao_multiagente",
  "recommendation": "nao_aplica",
  "published": "2026-10-07",
  "as_of": "2026-10-18",
  "editorial_status": "indexed",
  "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10858",
  "independent_implementations": 1,
  "total_implementations": 2,
  "stars": 14,
  "citations": 0,
  "claims": [
    {
      "claim_id": "claim-01",
      "statement": "The method replaces manual analog/RF circuit design steps (topology selection, schematic and testbench assembly, circuit sizing) with a multi-agent LLM pipeline combining multimodal RAG over engineering documents, a hybrid TPE/CMA-ES sizing optimizer, and a simulator-in-the-loop evaluation with a trust-scored results database. Adoption costs include access to a commercial process design kit (GF22FDSOI), circuit simulators, per-document FAISS infrastructure, and sustained LLM API usage, none of which serve an ML inference or training workload. It can fail through incorrect topology or schematic generation requiring expert human supervision, and its validation is limited to a single 60 GHz LNA family, so generality across circuits and processes is unestablished.",
      "basis": "inferred",
      "result": "",
      "baseline": "",
      "conditions": "",
      "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10858",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "exposure_map": [
    {
      "dimension": "quality",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compute",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "latency",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "operations",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compatibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "security",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "data_and_training",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "reproducibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "risks": [],
  "minimum_test": [],
  "open_questions": [],
  "independent_tests": [],
  "lab_reproductions": [],
  "report_available": false,
  "validation_tier": "unknown",
  "evidence_tier": "unknown",
  "infrastructure_basis": "unknown",
  "equations": [],
  "equations_status": "not_fetched",
  "core_kind": "",
  "equations_fetched_at": "",
  "equations_source_url": "",
  "equations_source_sha256": "",
  "exposures_reviewed_at": "",
  "exposures_source_sha256": ""
}