FluxEDA: A Unified Execution Infrastructure for Stateful Agentic EDA

Electronic design automation (EDA) is inherently multi-stage and handoff-heavy. Design artifacts, flow scripts, and engineering decisions cross tool, session, and organizational boundaries before final implementation, signoff, or release. Each transfer carries explicit and implicit requirements that may not be fully captured by stage-local checks. LLM-based agents now invoke EDA tools directly, embed retrieved knowledge in executable scripts, and hand off state across sessions and stages. Once their outputs condition downstream engineering decisions, the transferred object must satisfy a handoff contract and meet the assumptions of its next consumer. This survey introduces handoff validity as its organizing principle. A handoff is valid when the transferred object satisfies the consumer's acceptance conditions and carries sufficient context, evidence, and provenance for downstream use. We review 82 systems and classify them into three boundary classes. Stage-Bound systems establish validity within a single EDA stage or bounded verification task. Flow-Bound systems preserve coherent workflow state across tools, invocations, and sessions. Organization-Bound systems maintain source grounding, provenance, scope, and admissibility across knowledge and authority boundaries. For each class, we analyze handoff contracts, handoff objects, coordination mechanisms, and open questions. These analyses motivate a five-layer EDA agent communication protocol (EACP), covering the agent discovery, agent message, tool invocation, workflow orchestration, and security and IP protocols. We aim to provide a common vocabulary and research agenda for trustworthy agentic EDA.

Large language model (LLM) agents are extending electronic design automation (EDA) beyond static RTL generation toward long-horizon, tool-interactive workflows. Yet it remains unclear whether general-purpose coding agents, even with domain-specific EDA skills, can reliably execute an end-to-end RTL-to-GDS flow encompassing synthesis, physical implementation, and engineering change order (ECO) optimization. We evaluate AI agents on a PicoRV32 RTL-to-GDS flow using commercial EDA tools under two timing targets. Their performance is assessed using end-to-end design score, stage completion, and Token ROI, a cost-efficiency metric relating design quality to runtime and cost. Comparing three agent architectures and four foundation models, we derive three practical lessons. First, domain-specific skills improve agents' understanding of individual subtasks but do not ensure reliable completion of a long-horizon EDA flow. Second, agents that achieve similar design progress can still differ by up to 141 times in Token ROI, revealing substantial differences in runtime and cost efficiency. Third, low-level tool-interface mismatches are a major source of physical design failures, particularly when Tcl commands depend on the tool version or execution mode. These results suggest that robust Agentic EDA requires not only stronger models but also structured tool interfaces, persistent design context, controlled execution, and process-level evaluation.

Modern chip design relies on electronic design automation (EDA) tools that generate large, heterogeneous artifacts, including source files, scripts, logs, netlists, and reports. Analyzing these artifacts is critical for debugging, optimization, and design-flow understanding, but remains difficult because relevant evidence is often distributed across many artifact types and design stages. Although LLM agents show promise for EDA assistance, existing approaches lack public benchmarks for large-scale cross-artifact analysis and often struggle to ground reasoning in tool-generated evidence. We present EDATracer, an agentic framework for evidence-grounded EDA artifact analysis. EDATracer organizes design artifacts into a knowledge graph paired with a semantic vector index, enabling LLM agents to retrieve evidence across source files, logs, netlists, and reports. We curate an 18.9 GB dataset of 2,787 synthesizable open-source chip designs and introduce a 90-question benchmark spanning factual, statistical, and reasoning tasks. Across evaluated agents, EDATracer achieves the best pass@1 accuracy, outperforming Cursor and Claude Code by 6.4 and 7.2 percentage points on average, while using 2.0-3.2x fewer tokens.