LLM-based agents are increasingly applied to the "last mile" of Electronic Design Automation (EDA): repairing residual sign-off Design Rule Check (DRC) violations and converging Power-Performance-Area (PPA) targets after tool runs. Existing EDA-LLM benchmarks, however, omit DRC fixing entirely and rely on flat hierarchies tied to a single toolchain. We introduce PostEDA-Bench, a hierarchical benchmark with 145 tasks across DRC-Essential, DRC-Reasoning, PPA-Mono, and PPA-Multi, supported by EDA toolchains with machine-checkable evaluation. Across eight commercial and open-source LLMs under multiple agent scaffolds, we find that agents handle synthetic DRC-Essential and single-objective PPA-Mono reasonably well but degrade sharply on the more practical DRC-Reasoning, where the best success rate is 36.66%, and PPA-Multi, where the best success rate is 20.00%; vision augmentation consistently enhances DRC-Bench; and trade-off reasoning, rather than knob knowledge, is the dominant PPA-Multi bottleneck.
Manufacturable chip layouts must satisfy thousands of geometry-based design rules, and design rule checking (DRC) enforces them by running executable DRC scripts on layouts. Translating natural language rules into correct DRC scripts is labor-intensive and requires specialized expertise, motivating LLM agents for DRC script synthesis and debugging. However, existing benchmarks have small evaluation sets and often evaluate scripts by code similarity rather than execution correctness, and prior machine learning-based methods either ignore execution feedback or require labeled test layouts as agent's input. To this end, we introduce Rule2DRC, a large-scale benchmark for DRC script coding agents with 1,000 rule-to-script tasks and 13,921 evaluation chip layouts for execution-based scoring. Rule2DRC provides an evaluation pipeline that measures functional correctness via DRC execution outcomes without requiring evaluation layouts as input to the agent. We also propose SplitTester, a tester agent for program selection that uses execution feedback to generate discriminative test cases and separate previously indistinguishable candidate scripts, substantially improving Best-of-N selection performance in this domain. We release the code at https://github.com/snu-mllab/Rule2DRC.
Resolving Design Rule Violations (DRVs) in layouts entails an iterative loop of geometric edits and verification. We present DRC-Aid, a closed-loop agentic framework that automates local DRC repair by formulating it as verification-in-the-loop search. To constrain the combinatorial geometric repair space, a deterministic Rule Engine converts physical verification tool-reported violations into a bounded menu of geometric edits. An off-the-shelf Large Language Model (LLM) evaluates local geometric context to select edits from this menu, with budgeted depth-first search and backtracking. Immediate feedback from verification tools such as Calibre nmDRC/nmLVS enforces geometric compliance and guards against electrical-topology degradation, while a global Memory Bank prevents cyclic re-exploration. Evaluated on FreePDK45 layouts containing DRVs, DRC-Aid achieves DRC-clean, LVS-equivalent repairs in ~92.5% of cases with a ~98% total violation reduction, while residual cases yield partially repaired LVS-equivalent candidates. Under an identical search and verification infrastructure, LLM-based selection outperforms random (54.4%) and deterministic-heuristic (83.3%) policies, with the gap widening on cases with six or more violations.
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.