20 Claude Prompts for Technical Drawing (2026)

I've uploaded a technical drawing. Act as a mechanical drafter and walk me through it: identify each view and how they relate, list the main dimensions and what feature each one controls, explain every symbol and note, and summarise what the part is and how it would be made. Flag anything ambiguous or contradictory.

Review this drawing the way a machine shop would before quoting it. List everything that would stop them making the part: missing or unreadable dimensions, untoleranced critical features, no material or finish, no projection symbol, ambiguous notes. Return each gap as a specific question the shop would have to ask, ranked by how likely it is to hold up the quote.

I've uploaded a multi-sheet drawing pack as a PDF. For each sheet, give me a one-line summary: part or assembly name, drawing number, revision, and what the sheet defines. Then list the assembly structure as a tree, flag any sheet whose revision does not match the revision table on the cover sheet, and tell me which sheets I need to read carefully before quoting the whole job.

Read all the dimensions and hole callouts off this drawing and return them as a table with columns Feature, Nominal, Tolerance, Notes. List holes separately with diameter, depth (or THRU) and quantity. At the end, flag any value you are not fully sure you read correctly so I can verify it against the original.

I've uploaded a part drawing plus the customer's specification and the relevant email thread. Cross-check them: list every place where the drawing contradicts the spec or the emails (dimensions, material, finish, quantity, tolerance class, delivery state), quote the exact conflicting passages side by side, and tell me which document appears to be newest in each conflict.

Act as a mechanical drafter working to ASME Y14.5. I need to draw this part: [DESCRIBE PART, or say "see the uploaded photo"]. List the minimum set of orthographic views that fully defines it, tell me which face should be the front view and why, and say whether I need any section or detail views.

For this part [DESCRIBE / LIST FEATURES / or reference the uploaded image], propose a dimensioning scheme: which faces or edges to use as datums and why, whether each feature group should be baseline or chain dimensioned, and the order to dimension features so everything is defined exactly once and nothing is over-dimensioned.

Convert this part (uploaded photo, or the description below) into a structured drawing specification with sections for Views, Key dimensions, Tolerances, Material, Surface finish and General notes. Before you write it, ask me up to 5 clarifying questions if anything critical is missing. Description: [PASTE, or "use the image"].

Write a concise, shop-ready general-notes block and the title-block fields for a machined [MATERIAL, e.g. 6061-T6 aluminium] part called [NAME], part number [NUMBER], scale [1:2], units [mm], projection [third-angle], finish [FINISH], revision [A]. Cover default general tolerance, break-all-sharp-edges, deburring, coating and inspection. Use numbered notes like a real production drawing.

Two things. First, explain this GD&T feature control frame in plain English: [e.g. position 0.2 (M) | A | B(M) | C], covering the characteristic, the tolerance zone, the material-condition modifiers and the datum order. Second, I need to control that [REQUIREMENT, e.g. a bore stays perpendicular to the mounting face within 0.1 mm]: tell me which characteristic to use, what datums I need, and write the exact frame to put on the drawing.

Recommend a tolerancing strategy for this machined part [DESCRIBE or reference the image]. Suggest a sensible ISO 2768 general-tolerance class for the bulk of the dimensions, then list which specific features (mating diameters, hole positions, sealing faces) should get tighter individual tolerances, with a suggested value and the reason. Flag where GD&T would serve better than plus/minus.

Do a tolerance stack-up for this assembly: [LIST the chain of dimensions and tolerances from one interface to the other, e.g. housing bore depth 20.0 +0.1/0, spacer 5.0 ±0.05, bearing width 7.0 ±0.12]. Work step by step and show the arithmetic. Give me the worst-case result and the RSS (statistical) result, state whether the required clearance of [VALUE] always holds, and tell me which single tolerance to tighten first if it does not.

In an artifact, draw a clean 2D outline of this part as SVG: [e.g. a 120 x 40 mm tensioner arm with a Ø20 pivot bore at one end, a Ø10 boss at the other, and a 60 mm curved slot 8 mm wide along the body]. Use millimetre units (1 unit = 1 mm), black strokes on white, no fill, closed paths only, centrelines as dashed lines on a separate group. Label nothing; I want pure geometry I can refine and export.

Write a complete Python script using the ezdxf library that generates this part outline as a DXF: [DESCRIBE geometry with real dimensions, e.g. a 72 x 34 mm plate, two Ø8.5 counterbored holes 48 mm apart on the centreline, corner radius R2.5]. Requirements: millimetre units, closed LWPOLYLINE profiles, holes as CIRCLE entities, outline on layer CUT and holes on layer HOLES, and a comment on every dimension so I can edit it. I will run the script locally; tell me the one pip command I need first.

Write OpenSCAD code for a parametric [PART, e.g. handwheel / spacer / bracket] with named variables for every dimension [LIST DIMS]. Comment each variable, keep the model manifold and printable, and structure it so I can change one number and regenerate. Note how to export it to STL and how to get a 2D DXF profile of the [VIEW] out of it.

You are connected to [CAD TOOL, e.g. FreeCAD or AutoCAD] over MCP. Plan and then execute the sequence of tool calls to build this part [DESCRIBE with dimensions]: create the sketch, apply constraints, extrude, add the holes, then export a DXF of the [VIEW]. Before each call, state what you are about to do and why, and pause for my confirmation between the sketch stage and the feature stage. If a call fails, show me the error and your corrected retry instead of silently changing the plan.

I've added our company drawing standard and a sample of our approved drawings to this Project's knowledge. From now on, when I upload a drawing, review it against OUR standard specifically, not generic practice: check the title block fields we require, our default tolerance class, our note numbering and our projection convention. Return a pass/fail list per rule with the clause you are applying, and quote the clause when you flag a failure.

Here is my pre-release drawing checklist: [PASTE CHECKLIST]. Turn it into a reusable skill: write step-by-step instructions an AI assistant should follow every time it receives a drawing PDF, including the exact order of checks, the output format (a table with Check, Result, Evidence, Severity), and the rule that any unreadable value is reported as FAIL, never guessed. Keep it under 500 words so I can save it as a Claude skill and reuse it on every drawing.

I measured these features off a physical part with calipers: [LIST measurements]. Turn them into a clean dimensioned specification: suggest the likely nominal sizes (a 9.98 mm shaft is probably 10 mm), identify probable standard fits such as H7/g6 where a shaft meets a bore, propose sensible tolerances, and list what else I still need to measure to fully define the part. Show your reasoning for each nominal you infer.

I have only a photo of a part and need a manufacturing drawing and a DXF from it. Lay out the exact step-by-step workflow to get there: how to establish real scale from the photo, what to measure, which steps a person or a dedicated tool must do versus what you can help with, and how to verify the result before I send it to a shop. Be honest about what you cannot do yourself.