AgentsCAD: Automated Design for Manufacturing of FDM Parts via Multi-Agent LLM Reasoning and Geometric Feature Recognition
Authors: Emmanuel George, Christopher Keefe, Peter Pak, Amir Barati Farimani
Organizations: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Abstract
Parts manufactured with Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) often require Design for Additive Manufacturing (DFAM) modifications to ensure printability, structural integrity, and reduced post-processing. Current slicers identify defects such as steep overhangs but are unable to modify the underlying geometry. This work presents AgentsCAD, a multi-agent system that bridges raw boundary-representation (B-Rep) geometry and Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning to automate targeted DFM. The workflow begins by parsing a STEP file. The agentic system detects overhangs above a 45°threshold, constructs a face-adjacency topology graph, and optionally injects semantic feature labels from a GraphSAGE model trained on MFCAD++ (59,665 parts), before dispatching a Claude Sonnet design-reasoning agent that recommends reorientations, fillets, chamfers, and similar modifications. A GPT-4o vision-language verifier inspects rendered views to confirm geometric integrity. Outputs include a modified STEP file and a human-readable report. A test case on a birdhouse model demonstrates that the system correctly diagnoses overhangs, selects appropriate defect mitigation strategies, and proposes physically valid corrections, partially solving the geometry-to-language translation problem central to LLM-driven CAD modification.
In the past year, researchers have created agentic systems that can design real-world CAD-style objects in a training-free setting, a new variety of system that we call Agent-Aided Design. These systems place an agent in a feedback loop in which it generates an assembly of CAD model(s), visualizes the assembly, and then iteratively refines its assembly based on visual and other feedback. Despite rapid progress, a key problem remains: none of these systems can build complex 3D assemblies with moving parts. For example, no existing system can build a piston, a pendulum, or even a pair of scissors. In order for Agent-Aided Design to make a real impact in industrial manufacturing, we need a system that is capable of generating such 3D assemblies. In this paper we present a prototype of AADvark, an agentic system designed for this task. Unlike previous state-of-the-art systems, AADvark captures the dynamic part interactions with one or more degrees-of-freedom. This design decision allows AADvark to reason directly about assemblies with moving parts and can thereby achieve cross-cutting goals, including but not limited to mechanical movements. Unfortunately, current LLMs are imperfect spatial reasoners, a problem that AADvark addresses by incorporating external constraint solver tools with a specialized visual feedback mechanism. We demonstrate that, by modifying the agent's tools (FreeCAD and the assembly solver), we are able to create a strong verification signal which enables our system to build 3D assemblies with movable parts.
Computer-aided design (CAD) is the backbone of modern industrial design, yet learned CAD generators still fall short of real engineering pipelines: they neither iterate like engineers nor evaluate what engineering requires. Prior work has treated CAD generation as two disjoint steps, part synthesis and assembly, where the former is graded by proximity to a gold reference and the latter, when handled at all, is reduced to a separate constraint solving step. In this work, we introduce a more industry-native task formulation that requires a model to produce a fully assembled multi-part STEP file from a free-form engineering brief, which is then validated via finite element analysis (FEA). FEA validation reveals that Codex (GPT-5.5) and Claude Code (Opus-4.7) agents do not produce a single strict-passing artifact in the main first-attempt sweep, with the best configuration meeting only about 20% of typed requirements on average. Moreover, we introduce two additional supervision signals, a novel text-only blueprint schema and a 21-view image renderer that aids the agent's visual inspection, that better align the generation loop with how engineers iterate in practice. On S2O and Fusion360, the same feedback tools improve geometric reconstruction, with GPT-5.5/xhigh rising from 0.444 to 0.592 Box-IoU on S2O and from 0.397 to 0.505 on Fusion360. Together these signals move CAD programs toward artifacts that are not only visually plausible but also checked against physical and structural requirements.
Additive manufacturing (AM) continues to transform modern manufacturing by enabling flexible, on-demand production of complex geometries across diverse industries. Fused filament fabrication (FFF) has extended AM to laboratories, classrooms, and small production environments, but this accessibility shifts process-planning responsibility to users who may lack manufacturing expertise. A syntactically valid slicer profile can still encode thermally or geometrically harmful settings, and subtle G-code edits can alter extrusion, cooling, or adhesion before a print begins. Pre-print G-code screening catches accidental or adversarial machine-program errors before material or machine time is wasted. This paper proposes LLM-ADAM as a generalizable LLM framework for pre-print anomaly detection in AM. The framework decomposes the task into three roles: Extractor-LLM maps a G-code file to a structured process-parameter schema; Reference-LLM converts printer and material documentation into aligned operating ranges; and Judge-LLM interprets a deterministic deviation table and G-code evidence to decide whether a part is non-defective or belongs to an anomaly class. Printers, materials, and LLM backbones are interchangeable test conditions, not fixed assumptions. We evaluate the framework on an N=200 FFF G-code corpus spanning two desktop printer families, two materials, and five classes including non-defective, under-extrusion, over-extrusion, warping, and stringing. The best framework configuration reaches 87.5% accuracy, compared with 59.5% for the strongest engineered single-LLM baseline. The results show that structured decomposition, rather than backbone strength alone, is the dominant source of improvement, with defect classes identified at or near ceiling for leading configurations while residual errors concentrate on conservative false alarms for non-defective samples.