An early architectural programming assistant for turning a brief into structured spaces, review prompts, research drafts, and exportable working material.
Architectural programming workspace
AI Programming Assistant for Architects
Move from brief to evidence research, review, programme generation, adjacency logic, and save/export in one review-led workflow.
It is not code compliance, not permit-ready, not fire/accessibility certification, and not regulatory advice.
Agent plan, activity log, and suggested actions
Review-led workspace
Agent Plan
Current goalGuide the project from brief to reviewed programme, evidence, adjacencies, and save/export decisions.
Why this matters
Why this matters: research and precedent review reduce unsupported assumptions before programme decisions.
Agent activityLocal trace
No agent actions logged yet. Activity stays local to this workspace.
No blocking warnings from the deterministic planner. Human review is still required.
Step 1
Brief Input
Sharper inputs, better programme
Clarify the brief
8 open questions. Answer what you know — every answer feeds the brief directly and reduces assumptions in research and the draft programme. Skip what you don't know yet.
Likely users (confirm or edit)
- students by age band
- teachers and teaching assistants
- parents and guardians at drop-off/pickup
- administration and support staff
- cleaning, kitchen, and maintenance teams
- users with accessibility needs (to confirm)
Likely functions (confirm or edit)
- supervised arrival and safe pickup
- classrooms and group learning rooms
- staff, admin, and preparation areas
- play, sports, and outdoor learning
- toilets, storage, and service support
- shaded outdoor rooms and climate buffers
- parking, loading, waste, and service access (to confirm)
These are planning assumptions derived from your brief — not verified facts. Correct them via the questions above or the brief itself.
What a reliable programme still needs (6)
- student intake, class sizes, and shifts
- age bands and supervision ratios
- outdoor learning and sports expectations
- verified space list or precedent programme for this building type
- public, private, restricted, and service zone boundaries
- local code, accessibility, fire-life-safety, and jurisdiction checks
Show planned search queries (advanced)
Query-plan preview (G1, live)
The research queries Claude would plan from the current brief. Read-only: no sources are searched, nothing is saved or reviewed.
Draft research
Research Sandbox
Research providerResearch not run yet
Click Run research to gather source leads for review.
Draft only. Candidates never overwrite trusted templates and remain marked for human review before use.
Advanced research override — research inputs currently come from the Step 1 brief
Research has not run in this workspace yet.
One click runs live research via the server proxy when it is configured, and falls back to demo mode if it is unavailable. Either way, every result stays a draft for human review.
Evidence sources — supporting material (0)
Search-first source leads
Programme evidence source leads
These sources back spaces, requirements, and adjacencies — evidence leads for programme synthesis, not precedent projects to browse.
Medium research targets up to 12 evidence sources (case studies, guidance, and reference material) used to back spaces and requirements. Support/reference sources are kept separately.
Not all sources are direct building precedents. Source leads are review pointers for synthesis, not a list of websites visited.
- Planning queriesWaiting to run.
- Searching source leadsRuns before synthesis.
- Grouping leadsGroups appear after source discovery.
- Checking synthesis eligibilityCandidate selection follows grouping.
- Running synthesis/extractionStarts after source leads.
- VerificationRuns after extraction.
- Programme clustersBuilt after verification.
Influence map
What influenced what
A link counts as design influence only after you approve it. Proposed and blocked links are shown separately, so nothing counts as influence by default. Source leads are review pointers, not verified facts.
Approved influence (0)
You approved these connections — they count as design influence.
No approved influence yet — approve an implication to build the influence spine.
Proposed — not influence yet (0)
Proposed links. Not design influence until you approve them.
No proposed links waiting for approval.
Blocked / stale (0)
These chains no longer count — the link was rejected, its evidence changed, or its approval no longer resolves.
No blocked or stale links.
Supporting connections (context & bookkeeping)
Supporting connections (1)
Corroboration and bookkeeping. These never count as design influence.
- school → What spaces, assumptions, and adjacencies need human review?Generated · ProposedBrief → generated → Research requestHuman review required
Advanced / debug
Demo (static) research uses local placeholder data and never calls the server proxy. Use it to preview the flow or when the proxy is unavailable.
Browser-local onlyNo research session to save
Saved sessions keep sources, candidates, warnings, assumptions, and approval states in this browser.
Deterministic preview before review (read-only, fixture-labelled)
Read-only preview — deterministic and local, not live Claude, and not a final programme or plan. No live G3/G4 route was called; nothing here is saved or decided. To keep, reject, or defer items, .
Concept preview
Fixture / demo leads2 deterministic concepts from 2 fixture leads.
- Precedent lesson: [Local fixture] Courtyard primary school, monsoon climateproposed
Shaded arrival and courtyard threshold for a school.
quote: “A deep shaded verandah wraps the classroom edge, buffering monsoon rain and giving a covered arrival threshold before the courtyard.”
Concept details
- Precedent lesson: [Local fixture] Community library, entry courtproposed
Entry court gathering arrival for a library.
quote: “A generous entry court gathers arrival and slows movement, giving the library a clear public threshold before the reading rooms.”
Concept details
2 leads dropped by the firewall / gate (not shown as evidence)
- fixture-study-1 not_programme_kept
- fixture-support-1 not_precedent_project
Programme implication preview
Fixture / demo leads2 deterministic implications from 2 preview concepts — 2 evidence-backed, 0 downgraded.
- Programme implication from Precedent lesson: [Local fixture] Courtyard primary school, monsoon climatepending_review
evidence-backed
Implication details
- Programme implication from Precedent lesson: [Local fixture] Community library, entry courtpending_review
evidence-backed
Implication details
Cluster review
Programme candidates
No programme candidates yet. Run programme research and review its sources first — approved candidates arrive here as grouped clusters for review and import.
Draft programme
Generated Output
No programme generated yet.Fill the brief, choose a supported building type, and generate a local programme package.
G4 · G5
Programme Review Loop
DEMO / MOCK DATA — not a real research run. Live concept data not available yet — demo loop shown.
Concept → implication proposal → your review decision → guarded programme change. Every decision is recorded in the append-only decision log; evidence status is validator-produced, never asserted here.
G4 · Implication proposals
- Verandah → arrival transition zonepending review
The shaded-edge concept implies a covered arrival transition.
type: create_transition_zonesource: conceptevidence-backedorigin: evidence_backedstrength: design hypothesisfrom concept: Demo concept demo-c1evidence: demo-lead-1 - Entry court ↔ library adjacencypending review
The arrival-court concept implies a strong entry-to-library link.
type: strengthen_adjacencysource: conceptevidence-backedorigin: evidence_backedstrength: design hypothesisfrom concept: Demo concept demo-c2evidence: demo-lead-2 - Methodology-sourced room modification (never evidence-backed)pending review
A user methodology rule implies a modification — user_asserted only.
type: modify_spacesource: methodology_rulenot evidence-backedorigin: user_assertedstrength: design hypothesis
G5 · Proposed programme changes
- Eligible
- 0
- Excluded
- 3
- Change operations
- 0
Pending / needs review (3) — not compiled
- excluded: missing review statedemo-i1 · concept · evidence-backed
- excluded: missing review statedemo-i2 · concept · evidence-backed
- excluded: missing review statedemo-i3 · methodology_rule · not evidence-backed
No change operations yet — approve an implication to propose a programme change.
Apply blocked: no_operations
Applied change-state preview (not a final programme): 0 candidate spaces, 0 relationships, 0 modifications, 0 review flags.
Export
Save and Export
Nothing to export yet. Generate or import a draft programme first — exports always contain the current draft programme only.