Since it's the morning I thought I would ask Claude to create an example. This is just a first pass; it will be totally wrong but demonstrates the general idea.

Since it's the morning I thought I would ask Claude to create an example. This is just a first pass; it will be totally wrong but demonstrates the general idea. I don't know anything about barbells or your sensor: https://claude.ai/code/artifact/1f1a8a12-e5b2-4ee8-b20c-7da06720e58c https://claude.ai/code/artifact/1f1a8a12-e5b2-4ee8-b20c-7da0... I'm not sure from your description if you control the geometry of the sensor part (i.e, can the clamp be integral to the sensor housing or does it need to be a separate part) also ignores the internals, etc etc. One thing I noticed is that off the bat, it did think about the assembly in general terms but would need guidance to think harder about FDM limitations and layer orientation etc. These are not good designs for printing. A good dev loop and git history help with these kinds of revisions. The general principle is that if your domain is verifiable at all, give the model tools and a workflow that constrain and check its output. You want the LLM arguing with the geometry kernel instead of you. To fully close the loop you print parts as fast and possible and concretely see where they suck.