[IdiotSavage]

The actual prompts are more detailed than what's in the table on the main page:

https://media.githubusercontent.com/media/earthtojake/text-t...

I'm just wondering why anyone would bother describing CAD models in text. Language is imprecise and ambiguous. If you want to create a full part definition, you need to be extremely thorough with your description. At that point it's just easier (less mental load) and faster to construct the thing yourself. Not to mention, the model might still ignore your perfectly good prompt.

[_flux]

I think it could potentially be useful. Sometimes I need "simple" shapes that still are somewhat annoying to create. And I think you don't need to one-shot these, the process is permitted to be iterative! The skills can be improved by time by revising AGENTS.md, e.g. "when I say L-bracket, I probably mean..".

I think going from a picture to an initial starting point with well-"thought"-out structure for CAD purposes could potentially be very useful. Optimally you could just enter the measurements and be done.

[voidUpdate]

Oh, that's a bit misleading then when the prompt on the main page is "Create a centered 100 x 60 x 20 mm block with four 8 mm vertical through-holes. Add only a 2 mm chamfer on the top outer perimeter"

Looking at the L-bracket one, the specification is actually instructing the gussets to overlap the holes, so it actually performed both better and worse than I expected

And yes, as someone who CADs mechanical parts a reasonable amount, you have to be very precise, hence me wondering how the given prompt could be useful

[softservo]

Not intentionally deceptive, the prompts are just too big to include on the home page!

I actually used GPT 5.5 Pro to generate the prompts from simpler one sentence prompts, so hypothetically it’s just an extra step in the harness for an agent to unpack / add detail to a prompt based on the user’s goal.