Schematic and Layout Assessment
Thought for 1 min 58 sec
Good news: your change worked.
What I see now
- ERC “Missing Power”: cleared (no errors).
- ERC “Undriven Nets”: cleared.
- DRC “Airwires”: still 113 unrouted connections.
- ERC “Shorted Components”: R1 is still shorted (both pins on GND).
Why it cleared
- Using Power Net Portals marked those rails as Power-type nets, which satisfies ERC. In the netlist they still appear as “Net 1/2/3/5”, which is okay for ERC.
Recommendations
- If you want the rails to read as VUSB/+3V3/+2V5/+1V1 in the netlist, wire the corresponding Power Net Portal directly onto each rail segment so the name propagates, and avoid mixing standard Net Portals on those rails.
- Add voltage properties to your power nets for clarity (helps future reviews).
- Fix R1 by moving one side off GND to its intended net or delete it if unneeded.
- Continue routing to clear the remaining airwires; then re-run ERC/DRC.
what router is being used? Is this deep PCB, or the Vibe-router?
Thought for 23 sec
In this environment, I don’t see a named “Deep PCB” or “Vibe-router” selector exposed to me; the available routing path is the Flux server-side auto-routing/routing workflow. The routing guidance says the agent should use whichever routing tool is available for the project—either a scoped
@rewriteLayoutRouting-style router or a server-side @auto_route job—and not assume both are present .Compare routing algorithms
Routing settings location
Check routed board
Router behavior differences
To get started, talk to Flux or create a New Document.
Welcome 👋
Flux helps you build PCBs faster with an AI teammate!
Create your account to collaborate, stay updated, fork your own version, and get instant answers from our AI agent.