Coco: An Agentic Copilot for the Hardware--Software Co-Design Lifecycle
Authors: Samuel Kushnir, Kavya Sreedhar, Yeshwanth Reddy Pogula, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, Narges Shahidi, Ming Liu, Varun Gohil, Ravi Iyer, Parthasarathy Ranganathan, Christina Delimitrou, Suvinay Subramanian
Co-designing ML models and the accelerators that run them is an unusual reasoning task: architects must draw confident, high-stakes conclusions about systems that do not yet exist, and the pace of both model evolution and hardware cadence means the analysis burden grows every quarter. The evidence behind each decision--hundreds of gigabytes of fresh simulation sweeps over novel design points--is by construction absent from any LLM's pretraining corpus, and there is no external literature to retrieve; naive "chat-with-your-data" approaches hallucinate exactly where correctness matters most. We present Coco (Copilot for Codesign), an agentic platform deployed with TPU architects that accelerates the co-design lifecycle of setting up experiments, sweeping simulators, and deriving insights. Coco is built as four layers: (i) a datastore that automatically registers every simulation sweep into a normalized relational schema, so agents ground every number in a SQL query rather than scraping heterogeneous files; (ii) a library of tools with typed APIs that agents compose without human orchestration; (iii) agents that encode recurring analysis workflows--most notably iso-execution analysis, which compares systems at matched execution configurations, including swept-but-dominated points off the Pareto frontier; and (iv) a platform UX whose navigation state doubles as agent context. We report early deployment experience toward a reduction in time-to-simulation and time-to-insight, and argue that co-design is a distinct agentic domain: its data must be retrieved rather than memorized, its workflows are recurring but context-dependent, and expert adoption hinges on UX that balances IDE-style control with interactive exploration.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Coco’s four-layer stack (left) and the co-design lifecycle it accelerates (right). Each layer is consumed by the one above it; the platform’s navigation state feeds back into agent context.
Computation and communication in distributed LLM training and inference are traditionally optimized in isolation; expert-crafted systems such as DeepEP, FLUX, and TokenWeave show the potential of co-design but require deep systems expertise and hardware-specific tuning; CUCo is an agentic framework that automates compute-communication co-design of CUDA kernels by combining a structured design-space formalization with a correctness-first fast-path agent for reliable baselines and an evolution-driven slow-path agent for high-performance strategies, achieving up to 1.57x speedup across four multi-GPU workloads and discovering a two-stream overlap strategy on a DeepSeek-V3 MoE layer that hides dispatch behind local compute at an LLM inference cost under $10 per workload.
Yoga Sri Varshan Varadharajan, Bodun Hu, Saurabh Agarwal +1
Driven by a rapid co-evolution of both harness and underlying models, LLM agents are improving at a dizzying pace. In our prior work (performed in Dec. 2025), we introduced "Design Conductor" (or just "Conductor"), a system capable of building a 5-stage Linux-capable RISC-V CPU in 12 hours. In this work, we introduce an updated multi-agent harness powered by frontier models released in April 2026, which is able to handle 80x larger tasks, at higher quality, fully autonomously. Following a brief introduction, we examine 4 designs that the system produced autonomously, including "VerTQ", an LLM inference accelerator which hard-wires support for TurboQuant in a 240-cycle pipeline, starting from the TurboQuant arXiv paper. VerTQ includes heavy compute processing, with 5129 FP16/32 units; the design was mapped to an FPGA at 125 MHz and consumes 5.7 mm^2 in TSMC 16FF (8 attention pipes). We review the key new characteristics that enabled these results. Finally, we analyze Design Conductor's token usage and other empirical characteristics, including its limitations.
We ask whether AI agents powered by locally deployed large language models can reliably automate expert-defined hardware design workflows in an industry-realistic tool-calling setting. In these environments, engineers issue repetitive, dependency-ordered operations---such as creating components, adding ports, and wiring connections---through specialised tools. Confidentiality constraints on component specifications and naming conventions often preclude hosted proprietary APIs, motivating the use of locally deployed models. To study this setting, we build a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that reproduces the state and dependency logic of a proprietary hardware design tool used in embedded system development and construct a benchmark covering single-operation edits, multi-step dependency chains, invalid requests, misspelled prompts, and multi-server tool contexts. We evaluate seven open-source models comparing pipeline choices including system prompts, tool-description detail, context scope, and single-agent versus multi-agent architectures. Results show that strong models can achieve near-complete expected-call coverage on the benchmarked workflows, but reliability depends strongly on both task structure and agent configuration. Comprehensive tool descriptions consistently reduce failures, few-shot prompting can cause severe inaction for some models, cumulative context harms constrained models, and multi-agent decomposition helps weak workers or long sessions at the cost of additional calls. These findings provide practical guidance for deploying local LLM agents in stateful hardware design environments.