mbse-workflow

name	mbse-workflow
description	Use this skill for guided MBSE work in MATLAB — starting a new project, resuming work mid-workflow on an existing project, or answering orientation questions about how the MBSE skills fit together. Trigger when the user says they want to create, start, or set up a new MBSE project; work on a model-based systems engineering / RFLPV project; or asks which skill covers which phase. Walks through phases one at a time — propose → approve → generate → run → confirm. Use proactively whenever someone mentions starting or continuing an MBSE project.
license	MathWorks BSD-3-Clause (see LICENSE)
metadata	{"author":"MathWorks","version":"1.0"}

MBSE Workflow — Guided Project Setup and Phase Orchestration

This skill walks through an MBSE project one phase at a time — for greenfield setup and for resuming an existing project mid-workflow. At each phase: propose → get approval → generate script → run it → checkpoint. If the user rejects or wants changes, revise and regenerate — scripts are idempotent so this is always safe.

Skills by phase (at-a-glance routing)

Phase	Domain skill	What it covers
0	matlab-project	.prj setup, folder layout, file tracking, build-script conventions, runChecks
1, 9	simulink-requirements	slreq API — SNs, SRs, TCs; Derive / Implement / Verify links; coverage
2–4	mbse-architecture (+ system-composer)	F / L / P models, three-level interface dictionaries
4b–c	mbse-architecture / system-composer	Stereotype profile, architecture views (review dashboards)
5–7	mbse-architecture	F→L and L→P allocation sets, SR Implement links per layer
8	mbse-architecture	Quantitative roll-up analysis, margins (optional)
10	this skill	buildAll.m, project health check

Builds on matlab-project for the generic .prj mechanics: project creation, file tracking, path management, removeFile-before-delete, build-script idempotency conventions, and runChecks health checks. This skill generates the MBSE phase content; the project plumbing follows the patterns in ../matlab-project/SKILL.md.

Use the other mbse-* skills for technical API patterns at each phase. This skill manages the conversation flow and script generation.

---

Project folder layout

The MBSE project layout follows the standard setupProject shape from matlab-project, with these subfolders:

my-system/
├── my-system.prj          MATLAB Project file
├── plan.md / decisions.md (living docs — see below)
├── requirements/          .slreqx files (StakeholderNeeds, SystemRequirements, TestCases)
├── architecture/          .slx, .sldd, .xml, .mldatx (model, dictionary, profile, allocation)
├── analysis/              .mat (analysis instances)
├── verification/          (reserved — TC artifacts currently live in requirements/)
├── scripts/               buildAll.m, all phase build scripts, setupProject + setupMBSEProject
└── derived/               build outputs — NOT tracked in the project
    ├── cache/
    └── codegen/

---

Cross-Phase Dependencies

• Architecture rebuilds break allocation links. slreq.createLink stores component references by Simulink SID. If you rebuild the model, SIDs change and Implement allocation links become stale. Always rebuild allocation after rebuilding the architecture model.

• Profile setup belongs in the architecture script. Create and apply the stereotype profile at the end of buildPhysical() so estimates travel with the model and survive every rebuild.

• slreq.saveAll() saves cross-set links. Call it after any session that creates links between different .slreqx files or between requirements and architecture artifacts.

• slreq.clear() unloads all sets from memory but does not delete files. Call it at the top of each script for a clean slate, then slreq.load() the files you need.

• Delete .slmx link files alongside .slreqx files when rebuilding requirement sets. Stale .slmx files store cross-artifact links and will auto-open old model files on load, causing conflicts.

---

How to conduct this session

Work through the phases in order. Never jump ahead. At each checkpoint, present what you are about to create in plain language and wait for explicit approval ("looks good", "yes", "proceed") before generating the script. If the user asks for changes, make them and re-present — do not generate until approved.

After running each script, show the MATLAB output and ask the user to confirm it looks right before moving to the next phase. Keep proposed content concise and specific — avoid vague placeholders.

---

Living documentation: plan.md and decisions.md

This skill overrides the generic living-doc framework from matlab-project with MBSE-flavored templates. The framework, cadence guidance, and when-to-append rules live in ../matlab-project/SKILL.md; this skill ships its own templates with RFLPV phase rows and MBSE-specific sections (Engineering concerns, Analysis scope, Decision context).

Use the templates at templates/plan.md and templates/decisions.md — not the generic ones under matlab-project/templates/. Phase 0 copies both into the project root, fills placeholders from the interview answers, and registers them with the MATLAB project so they travel with the repo. Subsequent phases edit them per the cadence in matlab-project.

---

Phase 0: Interview and Project Setup

Ask the following questions (can be in one message):

1. System name — what is the system called? (Used for file and model names, e.g. SatComSystem)
2. Project location — full path to the folder where the project should be created
3. System description — one paragraph: what does it do, what problem does it solve?
4. Requirements source — do you already have system requirements in an Excel/xlsx file, or should we develop them together in the interview? (determines Phase 1 Path A vs. Path B below)
5. Key engineering concerns and review views — two linked sub-questions, ask together:
   • (a) What properties of components matter for design decisions? (e.g. mass, power, cost, reliability, latency, data rate, supplier, safety level — these become stereotype properties applied to every physical component.)
   • (b) What filtered views of the architecture would help during review? (e.g. "components costing more than 10% of the cost budget", "all safety-critical components", "components supplied by vendor X", "components consuming > 20 kW", "any component with a zeroed estimate — a forgotten-input flag".) Each view is either a stereotype-property query (Cost > 150000, SafetyLevel == 'DAL-A', Supplier == 'VendorX') or an allocation-driven hand-picked list ("all components realizing ControlUnit").
   • (a) and (b) are linked. A view filters on a property, so every property the user wants to view by must appear on the stereotype. If they want a by-supplier view, add a Supplier property. If they want a safety-critical view, add SafetyLevel. Ask (b) before finalising (a); the answers together determine the stereotype scope.
6. Analysis needs — is any quantitative roll-up or trade study analysis needed? If so, what kind?
7. Decision context — anything about the decision context here that isn't obvious from the SRs? Past incidents that shape risk tolerance, organizational constraints, dependent programs, stakeholder or political considerations. This answer seeds decisions.md with meaningful backstory so later design choices have the "why" captured alongside the "what".

Do not ask the user for physical subsystems up front. The physical architecture is derived from the functional architecture, the logical architecture, and the SRs — not specified a priori. If the user volunteers a physical decomposition, note it but do not commit to it; the Phase 4 proposal must still be driven by what the L→P mapping and hardware-specific SRs require.

After gathering answers, create the MATLAB Project inline (not as a saved script — the scripts/ folder doesn't exist yet). Use the MBSE wrapper code/setupMBSEProject.m, which pins the RFLPV folder set on top of setupProject from matlab-project:

setupMBSEProject(projectName, projectFolder)

The wrapper expands to:

setupProject(projectName, projectFolder, ...
    {'requirements','architecture','analysis','verification','scripts'}, ...
    {fullfile('derived','cache'), fullfile('derived','codegen')});

Generate three files into scripts/ so they are on the project path together: setupMBSEProject.m, the generic setupProject.m (copy from ../matlab-project/code/setupProject.m), and registerWithProject.m (copy from ../matlab-project/code/registerWithProject.m). Run setupMBSEProject(name, folder), confirm the project opens correctly, then proceed.

For the project mechanics that follow — addShortcut, removeFile before delete, build-script idempotency conventions, runChecks interpretation — see ../matlab-project/SKILL.md.

Seed the living documentation

Copy this skill's MBSE templates into the project root and fill placeholders from the interview answers:

• plan.md — substitute {{SystemName}}, {{OnePargraphDescription}}, {{RequirementsSource}}, {{ProjectFolder}}, {{EngineeringConcernsList}} (Q5), {{AnalysisScopeList}} (Q6), {{DecisionContext}} (Q7). Leave Open questions / Known risks as starter bullets ("(none identified yet)") or carry any concerns raised during the interview.
• decisions.md — substitute {{Date}} (absolute date, e.g. 2026-04-18), {{SystemName}}, and the same Phase 0 answers in the seeded first entry.

Templates: templates/plan.md and templates/decisions.md — these MBSE versions override the generic ones in matlab-project/templates/. Register both with the project (addFile) so they ship with the repo.

MBSE-specific decisions to log in decisions.md during the workflow:

• "shortened artifact prefix from full system name to make filenames manageable"
• "decomposed CoordinateOperations into 4 sub-functions per user preference"
• "added PowerEstimate_W to stereotype mid-project after initial scope explicitly excluded it"

Skip entries for SR-forced decisions, mechanical steps ("created the .prj file", "imported 27 SRs from xlsx"), bug fixes, or API-level iteration.

---

Phase 1: Requirements

Phase 1 has two entry modes. Use Path A when the user is developing requirements from scratch in the interview, and Path B when the user already has system requirements in an Excel file (Phase 0 question 4).

---

Path A — Draft requirements from the interview

Propose

Based on the interview, draft:

• Stakeholder Needs (SNs) — 4–8 operational-perspective statements. Format: SN-XXX-NNN. Focus on what users/operators need, not how the system works.
• System Requirements (SRs) — 1–3 testable shall-statements per SN, each with a measurable acceptance criterion. Format: SR-XXX-NNN. Include at least 2 SRs for any budget/property cap identified in Phase 0.

Present these as a table for the user to review. Wait for approval or changes.

Generate

After approval, generate scripts/buildRequirements.m using patterns from the simulink-requirements skill. The script must:

• Delete and recreate both .slreqx files and their .slmx link files on every run
• Create all SNs, all SRs, and Derive links from each parent SN to its derived child SR(s) — slreq.createLink(sn, sr); lnk.Type = 'Derive'; (SN is the source, SR is the destination)
• Use slreq.clear() at the top

Checkpoint

Show: requirement counts, derivation link count. Ask the user to confirm counts match what was approved.

---

Path B — Import requirements from Excel

Clarify

Ask the user:

• xlsx file path(s) — one SR file, or separate SN and SR files? Full path to each.
• Column mapping — which columns correspond to Id, Summary, Description, Rationale? Default is 1–4 in that order. Read the header row with readtable(..., 'VariableNamingRule','preserve') and show it back before confirming.
• Derive links — if the xlsx has a parent-reference column (e.g. DerivedFrom), ask whether to rebuild Derive links from it. If yes, the SR import uses attributeColumn to preserve it as a custom attribute, and buildRequirements.m reads that attribute post-import to create slreq.createLink(snId, srId); lnk.Type='Derive' for each listed parent.
• SN handling — if the user only has SRs in Excel and no SN file, note that the downstream workflow will trace at the SR layer only (no upstream Derive links). Offer to synthesize placeholder SNs from SR summaries later if wanted.

Propose

Present a brief plan, e.g.:

Import SystemRequirements.xlsx (16 rows) as editable set SystemRequirements, columns 1–4 mapped to Id/Summary/Description/Rationale, DerivedFrom (column 5) kept as a custom attribute. No SN file supplied — downstream traceability starts at SR.

Wait for approval.

Generate

Generate scripts/buildRequirements.m using the importMyRequirements helper from the simulink-requirements skill (see simulink-requirements/code/importMyRequirements.m). The script must:

• Use AsReference=false so requirements are editable (imported copies, not read-only references to the xlsx)
• Pass rows=[2 lastRow] to skip the header row — otherwise the header becomes a requirement
• Explicitly call reqSet.save() — slreq.import does not save to disk on its own
• Register the .slreqx and its ~slreqx.slmx with the project
• Be idempotent: delete the .slreqx and .slmx before re-importing

Note that slreq.import auto-creates a wrapping Container node named "<File>!<Sheet>", which would push every real requirement down to index 1.1, 1.2, ... in the Requirements Editor. The importMyRequirements helper unwraps this wrapper by default (flatten=true), forward-promoting each direct child to top level and removing the empty Container. Real nested hierarchy (actual parent-child relationships in the source) is preserved — only the auto-import wrapper is removed. Pass flatten=false to keep the Container if you have a reason to (e.g. matching a legacy export).

Checkpoint

Show: requirement count (excluding the Container), the set name, any custom attributes preserved, and the first 2–3 requirements as a sanity check (Id, Summary, first part of Description). Ask the user to confirm the import looks right before moving to Phase 2.

---

Phase 2: Functional Architecture

Functional Analysis (propose first)

Before drafting any architecture, perform a functional analysis: work through each SR and ask what the system must do to satisfy it. Present a derivation table:

SR-ID    Summary                          Function(s)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
SR-001   Roll rate command range          SenseAircraftState, ComputeControlLaws
SR-002   Pitch rate command range         SenseAircraftState, ComputeControlLaws
SR-003   Surface actuator response time   CommandControlSurfaces
...

Every SR must map to at least one function. If a function has no SRs, flag it — it is either orphaned or covering an undocumented need. This table becomes the Function → SR Implement link table in Phase 7.

Wait for approval on the SR → Function mapping before proceeding.

Propose architecture

After the mapping is approved, propose:

• Functions — the unique set from the derivation table. For each: name (verb phrase), one-sentence description
• Functional interfaces — abstract information flows between functions. For each: name, semantic fields with types. Keep these at a logical level — no physical units or implementation detail yet
• Connections — data flow between functions

Note: functional architecture is independent of physical implementation — functions should reflect operational concepts from the SNs, not implementation decisions.

Generate

After approval, generate scripts/buildFunctional.m using patterns from the mbse-architecture skill:

• Creates the functional interface dictionary (MyFunctionalInterfaces.sldd) with logical abstractions
• Creates the functional SC model, adds function components, typed ports, and connections
• No dependency on the physical model — this script runs independently
• modelName must be a double-quoted MATLAB string for char(modelName) + ".slx" to work
• Re-fetch interfaces after dict.save() before calling setInterface

Immediately after, also generate and run scripts/buildFunctionalAllocation.m and the shared helper scripts/removeImplementLinksToModel.m:

• removeImplementLinksToModel(srSet, modelBasename) iterates SR inLinks (Implement links go arch→req, so from a requirement's perspective they are inLinks) and removes only Implement links whose source lnk.source().artifact matches the given model basename — used by all three per-phase allocation scripts so each cleans up only its own links
• buildFunctionalAllocation.m calls this helper (scoped to the functional model), then creates Function → SR Implement links from the Phase 2 analysis table — slreq.createLink(funcComp, req); lnk.Type = 'Implement' (component is the source, requirement is the destination)
• After creating links, register both the model .slx AND the {modelName}~mdl.slmx link store file with the project. slreq creates ~mdl.slmx automatically the first time you create a link into a Simulink/SC model — it lives next to the .slx and stores the link data. Without registering it, project file checks fail and the traceability won't travel with the project
• Calls slreq.saveAll() at the end
• Includes a header comment noting: re-run this whenever buildFunctional.m is re-run (SIDs change on rebuild); this script is superseded by buildAllocation.m in Phase 7

Apply the same pattern in Phase 3 and Phase 4: after buildLogical.m, generate and run buildLogicalAllocation.m (Logical → SR Implement links for non-functional reqs); after buildPhysical.m, generate and run buildPhysicalAllocation.m (Physical → SR Implement links for hardware-specific reqs and budget caps). Propose the SR → Logical and SR → Physical mapping tables for user approval before each. All three allocation scripts use the same removeImplementLinksToModel helper so they can run in any order without wiping each other out.

This gives the user immediate traceability at each architecture layer. Phase 7's buildAllocation.m will absorb and replace all three per-phase scripts.

Checkpoint

Show: function count, interface count, connection count, Function→SR Implement link count. Ask user to confirm the functional model and traceability look right.

---

Phase 3: Logical Architecture

Propose

Based on the functional architecture, propose logical elements — design-agnostic solution principles that answer "what kind of element solves this function?" without committing to specific hardware or software:

• Logical components — typically 4–8. For each: name (noun describing the solution role, e.g. SensingUnit, ControlUnit, ActuationUnit), one-sentence role, which function(s) it realizes. Avoid hardware brand names or part numbers — those belong in Phase 4.
• Logical interfaces — intermediate-level signal types: typed fields with semantic meaning, but no datasheet-level specifics (no voltage ranges, baud rates, or tolerance values)
• Connections — signal flows between logical components

Present as a component list. Make clear to the user that this layer sits between what the system does (Phase 2) and how it is built (Phase 4).

Generate

After approval, generate scripts/buildLogical.m using patterns from the mbse-architecture skill:

• Creates the logical interface dictionary (MyLogicalInterfaces.sldd)
• Creates the logical SC model, adds logical components, typed ports, and connections
• No dependency on functional or physical model — runs independently
• modelName must be a double-quoted MATLAB string for char(modelName) + ".slx" to work
• Re-fetch interfaces after dict.save() before calling setInterface

Checkpoint

Show: logical component count, interface count, connection count. Ask user to confirm the logical model represents the right solution principles before moving to physical.

---

Phase 4: Physical Architecture

Propose

The physical components are derived from the logical architecture and the SRs — they are not supplied by the user. Work out the decomposition by asking: for each logical element, what concrete hardware/software unit realizes it within the constraints set by the SRs (budgets, environment, interfaces)? Which hardware-specific SRs (packaging, EMC, power, environmental) force a component boundary to exist? Group and split logical elements along those lines.

Then propose:

• Components — typically 4–8 top-level physical components. For each: name, one-sentence role, which logical element(s) it implements, and which SR(s) force it to exist as a distinct unit
• Physical interfaces — implementation-level data/signal types with concrete fields, types, and units (e.g., ElectricalPower with Voltage/Current elements)
• Connections — which component ports connect to which

Present as a component list + connection diagram in text. Wait for approval.

If the user volunteered a physical decomposition in Phase 0, still derive the proposal independently and then reconcile — call out any divergence so the user can decide whether to override the derived structure or revisit the L→P mapping.

Generate

After approval, generate scripts/buildPhysical.m using patterns from the mbse-architecture and system-composer skills:

• Creates the physical interface dictionary (MyPhysicalInterfaces.sldd) with implementation-level interfaces
• Creates the SC model, adds components, ports, connections
• Applies auto-layout and saves
• No dependency on the logical or functional model — this script runs independently

Checkpoint

Show: component count, connection count, any unconnected port warnings. Ask user to confirm the model opened in System Composer looks right.

---

Phase 4b: Component Properties

Propose

Based on the engineering concerns and the view wishlist identified in Phase 0 Q5, propose one or more stereotypes:

• Stereotype name — name it after what you are characterizing, not the analysis activity. e.g. FlightProperties, HardwareProperties, ComponentCharacteristics. Avoid names like BudgetProperties — a stereotype often carries mass, power, reliability, and latency together, so a budget-specific name is too narrow.

• Properties — for each: name, type (double/string/enum), unit, what it represents. Cross-check against the view wishlist. Every property a view needs to filter on must be on the stereotype; every property on the stereotype should serve at least one view or the rollup analysis. An orphan property is a sign the stereotype is over-scoped or the view list is incomplete.

• Which components each stereotype applies to — leaves, composites, or both. When the physical architecture contains composite assemblies (sub-components nested inside top-level components), this is a real design choice:

  • Leaves only (default, simpler): prop == 0 review-dashboard views like ZeroedEstimate_Flag stay meaningful — composites don't false-positive because they have no stereotype. The analysis driver rolls up with a recursive sumLeaves(instance, prop) walker (see mbse-architecture/references/analysis.md §"Leaves-only stereotype"). Composites are treated as structural containers.
  • Both leaves and composites (canonical iterate + PostOrder): the Analysis Viewer displays rolled-up values at every hierarchy level, not just leaves. Tradeoff: composites carry default-0 initial values in the design model, so any prop == 0 review-dashboard view will false-positive on them until an analysis runs — and rollup results live on the analysis instance, not the design, so the view never actually clears.

  Pick leaves-only unless the user wants hierarchical display in the Analysis Viewer. The Phase 8 analysis pattern follows from this choice.

• Initial estimates — propose plausible starting values per component; user should correct these

Present as a table. Wait for approval.

Generate

Add stereotype creation and application to buildPhysical.m (at the end, after the architecture is built), following the mbse-architecture profile patterns:

• Use systemcomposer.profile.Profile.createProfile
• Add stereotypes with addStereotype, properties with addProperty
• Apply to components with applyStereotype, set values with setProperty
• profile.save() requires a char path — not a string type

Re-run buildPhysical.m (idempotent — it rebuilds from scratch).

Checkpoint

Show: stereotype name(s), property names and estimates per component. Ask user to confirm values are reasonable starting points.

---

Phase 4c: Architecture Views

Views are filtered lenses on the physical model — named dashboards you can flip to in the SC canvas dropdown. Because they live inside the .slx (as archViews.xml), a physical-model rebuild wipes them, so this step runs after buildPhysical.m and is idempotent itself.

Propose

Based on the view wishlist from Phase 0 Q5(b), propose a concrete set of view specs. For each:

• Name — PascalCase, descriptive (CostDrivers, HighPowerConsumers, SafetyCritical, VendorXComponents, ZeroCost_Flag).
• Query — either a stereotype-property comparison (Cost_credits > 150000, SafetyLevel == 'DAL-A') or a note that it's an explicit-element list (allocation-driven).
• Color — hex (#D62728 red, #FF7F0E orange, #2CA02C green, etc.). Named colors like red/blue work but only a subset — magenta errors out. Prefer hex.
• What it surfaces — one-line purpose, e.g. "first targets for trimming when SR-XXX fails".

Suggested starter pack (adjust to the project):

View	Query	Purpose
CostDrivers	Cost > 10% of budget	Trim targets when SR-cost fails
HighPowerConsumers	Power > 10% of cap	Margin-miss contributors
HeavyStructure	Mass > threshold	Chassis / bulk hardware review
ZeroCost_Flag (or any budget property)	prop == 0	Catches forgotten estimates before PostOrder rollup silently treats them as 0
<ProductionPipeline>	Throughput > 0	Bottleneck-analysis members

Present as a table. Wait for approval.

Generate

Generate scripts/buildViews.m using the buildMyViews helper from the system-composer skill (see system-composer/code/buildMyViews.m). The script:

• Takes a cell-array of specs {name, prop, op, value, color}
• Calls createView(model, name, Select=q, Color=color) for each
• Is idempotent — deleteView before createView on every run
• Must run after buildPhysical.m; add it to buildAll.m between the Physical step and the F→L allocation step

Re-run and open the Views Gallery: openViews(systemcomposer.openModel('<Model>')).

Checkpoint

Show: view name, query, color, and match count per view. The ZeroCost_Flag view should ideally report 0 matches; if it reports a positive count, those components have un-filled estimates.

For allocation-driven or hand-picked views

Single-property queries don't cover every useful view (e.g. "all Physical components realizing ControlUnit logicals"). For those, buildViews.m can also use the explicit-element pattern:

v = createView(model, 'ControlRealization', Color='#1F77B4');
% walk the L->P allocation set and addElement for each Physical target
for ...
    v.Root.addElement(arch.lookup('Path', physPath));
end

Use query-driven views where a single property suffices; reach for explicit elements only when the grouping criterion is relational (allocation, supplier partition, certification path).

---

Phase 5: F→L Allocation Set

Propose

Map each logical function to the logical element(s) that realize it. Present as a two-column table:

Function                    Logical Element(s)
───────────────────────────────────────────────
FunctionA               →   SensingUnit
FunctionB               →   ControlUnit
FunctionC               →   ControlUnit, ActuationUnit

Wait for approval or corrections.

Generate

After approval, generate scripts/buildFunctionalToLogical.m using patterns from the mbse-architecture skill:

• AllocationSet.closeAll() then delete the .mldatx file before recreating
• createAllocationSet name must differ from the file base name — append 'Set' to avoid the "name must be unique" save error
• Use createScenario(allocSet, 'FunctionalToLogical')
• Both models must be open: addpath(archDir) then openModel by name for each

Checkpoint

Show the F→L allocation table. Ask user to confirm every function is covered.

---

Phase 6: L→P Allocation Set

Propose

Map each logical element to the physical component(s) that implement it. Present as a two-column table:

Logical Element             Physical Component(s)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
SensingUnit             →   ComponentX
ControlUnit             →   ComponentY
ActuationUnit           →   ComponentX, ComponentZ

Wait for approval or corrections.

Generate

After approval, generate scripts/buildLogicalToPhysical.m — same pattern as Phase 5 but with the logical and physical models as source and destination:

• Use createScenario(allocSet, 'LogicalToPhysical')

Checkpoint

Show the L→P allocation table. Ask user to confirm every logical element maps to at least one physical component.

---

Phase 7: Requirements Allocation

Propose

Present three allocation tables for user review:

Table 1 — SR → Function (reuse the derivation table from Phase 2 Functional Analysis):

SR-ID    Function(s)
────────────────────────────────────
SR-001   SenseAircraftState, ComputeControlLaws
SR-002   ComputeControlLaws
...

Every SR must appear here. This is mandatory.

Table 2 — SR → Logical component (non-functional requirements): Use for: timing, performance, safety, security, or requirements specific to a logical role.

SR-ID    Logical Component(s)
────────────────────────────────────
SR-005   ControlUnit
SR-008   SensingUnit, ControlUnit
...

Table 3 — SR → Physical component (hardware-specific requirements): Use for: hardware specs, environmental constraints, EMC ratings, packaging, installation.

SR-ID    Physical Component(s)
────────────────────────────────────
SR-011   PowerSystem
SR-014   ActuatorSystem, PowerSystem
...

An SR may appear in multiple tables. Flag any SR with no entry in Table 1 — every SR must trace to at least one function. Wait for approval before generating.

Generate

After approval, generate scripts/buildAllocation.m using patterns from the mbse-architecture skill:

• Remove existing Implement links before recreating (idempotent)
• Open all three models: MyFunctional, MyLogical, MySystem
• Use fileparts(fileparts(mfilename('fullpath'))) for the project root — never '..' in paths passed to System Composer
• addpath(archDir) then openModel by model name, not full path
• Call slreq.saveAll() at the end

Checkpoint

Show: SR → Function link count, SR → Logical link count, SR → Physical link count. Flag any SR missing from Table 1.

---

Phase 8: Analysis (Optional)

If the user indicated no analysis is needed in Phase 0, skip this phase entirely.

Otherwise, ask:

• What to compute — roll-up sums (mass, power, cost)? Margins against caps? Sensitivity? Pareto?
• Budget caps — are any system-level limits defined in SRs? (Parse from requirement descriptions using the parseBudgetValue pattern from mbse-analysis)
• What to write back — computed values (margins, roll-ups) can be written back to the analysis instance via setValue

Generate

Generate scripts/runAnalysis.m using patterns from the mbse-analysis skill:

• instantiate(arch, profileName, 'AnalysisName') creates the instance
• getValue(ci, [prefix, 'PropertyName']) returns double — no str2double needed
• save(instance, fullfile(analysisDir, 'AnalysisName.mat')) for Analysis Viewer — save to analysis/, not architecture/
• Open with systemcomposer.analysis.openViewer('AnalysisName') (instance name, not file path)

Checkpoint

Show the analysis report output. Flag any margins that are negative (over budget). Ask user to confirm.

---

Optional: behavioral views (sequence diagrams)

When the structural architecture is stable, a sequence diagram adds the "how the pieces collaborate over time" story. Typical trigger: a stakeholder review where reviewers ask "walk me through what happens during a normal X" — production cycle, fault handling, startup, etc.

Best authored on the logical model. The logical layer is stable across variant trade studies (variants typically only change the physical layer), so a sequence diagram written there survives architecture-options work.

Use System Composer Interactions programmatically — every message is bound to a real port pair on the underlying components, so a port rename surfaces as a build error instead of silent drift.

The build step typically runs LAST in buildAll because it attaches an interaction to a model that's already been built by its own build script — the architecture rebuild wipes interactions, so the sequence diagram must be re-created after.

Requirement traceability caveat on R2025b: a Verify link from a sequence-diagram Interaction to an SR cannot coexist with linktype_rmi_simulink Implement links on the same .slx — see the simulink-requirements Common Pitfalls section for details. For now, trace from the diagram to SRs by convention (a named interaction + a companion TC that references it by name).

Skip this phase entirely if a behavioral view adds no review value; nothing else in the workflow depends on it.

---

Phase 9: Test Cases

Propose

For each SR, propose one test case (TC) with:

• ID — TC-XXX-NNN matching the SR number
• Description — concise test procedure: what stimulus, what measurement, what pass criterion

Present as a table. Wait for approval or edits.

Note: SR-NNN for property/budget caps (e.g. total mass budget) are typically verified by the analysis script, not a test case — it is acceptable for these to show as "NOT COVERED" in the coverage report.

Generate

After approval, generate scripts/buildTestCases.m using patterns from the simulink-requirements skill.

Use the load-or-clear-and-repopulate idempotency pattern, not delete-and-new. In long build pipelines (e.g. buildAll.m running phases 1–9 back to back), slreq.new(tcFile) intermittently fails with name conflict with TestCases.slreqx even after slreq.clear() and a seemingly-successful delete(tcFile). The robust recipe:

slreq.clear();
srSet = slreq.load(srFile);

if isfile(tcFile)
    tcSet = slreq.load(tcFile);

    % Clear the LinkSet first — req.remove() leaves orphan outLinks in the
    % .slmx that produce "unresolved source" warnings on reload.
    lnkSets = slreq.find('type','LinkSet','Artifact', tcFile);
    for i = 1:numel(lnkSets)
        links = lnkSets(i).getLinks();
        for j = 1:numel(links), links(j).remove(); end
    end

    existing = tcSet.find('Type','Requirement');
    for k = numel(existing):-1:1, existing(k).remove(); end
else
    tcSet = slreq.new(tcFile);
end

% ... add TCs and Verify links ...
tcSet.save();
slreq.saveAll();

• Create one TC requirement per SR, link with Verify type
• Call slreq.saveAll() at the end

Checkpoint

Show: TC count, verification coverage report (SR IDs vs TC IDs). Flag any SRs without a TC other than expected budget-cap SRs.

---

Phase 10: Build All and Final Summary

Verification in this workflow is a single layer: the TestCases.slreqx set built in Phase 9 contains one prose TC per SR with a Verify link to that SR. That is the full extent of the verification artifact set — no .mldatx test file is generated.

Generate buildAll.m

Generate scripts/buildAll.m that calls all phase scripts in order with timing output. This is the single entry point for a clean rebuild from scratch.

After all phase scripts complete, buildAll.m must:

1. Call registerWithProject for all script files in scripts/ (keeps the project in sync — include setupProject.m, setupMBSEProject.m, registerWithProject.m, removeImplementLinksToModel.m, every build*.m, runAnalysis.m if applicable)
2. Append the project health check block from ../matlab-project/SKILL.md (the runChecks loop with PASS/FAIL output) verbatim — that block is generic and lives in the matlab-project skill so updates only need to land in one place

Final summary

Present a complete artifact inventory:

Project: <Name>  (<root folder>)
├── <Name>.prj
├── plan.md                            (living project overview)
├── decisions.md                       (append-only decision log)
├── requirements/
│   ├── StakeholderNeeds.slreqx        (N items)
│   ├── SystemRequirements.slreqx      (N items)
│   └── TestCases.slreqx               (N items)
├── architecture/
│   ├── <Name>Functional.slx           (functional model — Phase 2)
│   ├── <Name>FunctionalInterfaces.sldd
│   ├── <Name>Logical.slx              (logical model — Phase 3)
│   ├── <Name>LogicalInterfaces.sldd
│   ├── <Name>Physical.slx             (physical model — Phase 4)
│   ├── <Name>PhysicalInterfaces.sldd
│   ├── <Name>Profile.xml              (stereotype profile — Phase 4b)
│   ├── <Name>FunctionalToLogical.mldatx  (F→L allocation — Phase 5)
│   └── <Name>LogicalToPhysical.mldatx    (L→P allocation — Phase 6)
├── analysis/
│   └── <analysis>.mat                 (analysis instance, if Phase 8 ran)
└── scripts/
    ├── buildAll.m                      (run this to rebuild everything)
    ├── buildRequirements.m
    ├── buildFunctional.m
    ├── buildLogical.m
    ├── buildPhysical.m
    ├── buildFunctionalToLogical.m
    ├── buildLogicalToPhysical.m
    ├── buildAllocation.m
    ├── runAnalysis.m                   (if Phase 8 ran)
    └── buildTestCases.m

Traceability:
  SN ─[Derive]─▶ SR ◀─[Implement]─ LogicalComponent  (or PhysicalComponent)
                                        ▲
                                    [L→P Allocate]
                                        │
                                  LogicalElement
                                        ▲
                                    [F→L Allocate]
                                        │
                                   Function
  SR ─[Verify]─▶ TC requirement

Remind the user they can rebuild everything cleanly at any time with buildAll().

---

Handling rollback

If the user rejects a checkpoint:

1. Ask what specifically needs to change
2. Revise the proposed content
3. Re-present for approval
4. Regenerate the script with the changes
5. Re-run and re-checkpoint
6. Append a decisions.md entry capturing the original choice, the reason for the change, and what replaced it — don't rewrite earlier entries. Rollbacks are high-signal moments; failing to log them is how projects lose their "why".

Because every script deletes and recreates its artifacts from scratch, there is no state to undo — just regenerate.