For MEP, building services and power engineers · US · UK · AU/NZ · Canada
The study’s done. Now the write-up, the spec and the submittal log.
Basis of design, spec sections, comment logs, study narratives: on every project the drafting lands on you. Each hour of it is an hour off design work, or it moves to your evening.
The Electrical Engineer’s Pack: one Claude Skill with 19 ready-made playbooks.
- Basis of design reports
- Spec sections & RFIs
- Submittal comment logs
- One-time payment
- 30-day money-back guarantee
- Works on free Claude
Short-circuit & arc-flash study · Results section · excerpt
Scope and method. This section summarises the short-circuit and arc-flash results produced in ETAP for [Project], based on the one-line diagram and the utility data listed in Table A. The study was not re-run or modified in preparing this narrative; every value below is taken from the pasted output (report dated [date]).
Results. At MSB-1 (480 V) the study reports a bolted three-phase fault current of 38.2 kA and an incident energy of 7.9 cal/cm² at an 18 in working distance, with an arc-flash boundary of 61 in. At MCC-2 the corresponding values are 24.1 kA, 3.1 cal/cm² and 32 in. MSB-1 is the governing location for the equipment covered by this report.
Checked before you see it
- Checked: 6 of 6 study values traced to the pasted ETAP output · none recalculated
- Checked: Utility fault current traced to the pasted utility letter
- Verify: MSB-1 device settings not field-confirmed · carried into the assumptions table
Sound like your week?
- The study ran clean. Now you’re turning bus results into a report narrative, value by value, at the end of the day.
- A thick submittal lands on your desk, and the comment log against the spec section is yours to write before the review deadline.
- You copy last project’s spec section over and edit it line by line, hoping nothing still points to the old edition.
- The basis of design lives in your head and your bullet points. Writing it out is the part that keeps slipping to next week.
Where the hours go
Where the week goes once the design is done
The same documents in about half the drafting time, with Claude and these playbooks
- Today
- With The Electrical Engineer’s Pack
Design reports and study write-ups
Today: 4 h/wkWith The Electrical Engineer’s Pack: 2 h/wkSpecification sections
Today: 3 h/wkWith The Electrical Engineer’s Pack: 1.5 h/wkRFIs, review notes and actions
Today: 2 h/wkWith The Electrical Engineer’s Pack: 1 h/wkLong-document summaries
Today: 1.5 h/wkWith The Electrical Engineer’s Pack: 1 h/wk
Today: ≈10.5 h a week, ≈504 h a year on this work.
Back in your week, our estimate
≈5 h
Example starting value: $110. Move it to your own number.
- Pro pays for itself after
- ≈33 min
- Time back, each month
- ≈$2,200
How we estimated these numbers
An older academic survey found engineers spend about 40% of their time writing (VTechWorks): 16 hours of a 40-hour week. By our estimate the four recurring documents below take about 10.5 of them, or 504 hours over a 48-week year. That’s before submittal reviews, which review-tool vendors put at 3–4 hours each.
- Design reports and study write-ups, 4 h/week: Our estimate: basis of design, load and cable narratives, within the ~40% writing share (VTechWorks)
- Specification sections, 3 h/week: Our estimate: one or two sections a week edited from the master spec
- RFIs, review notes and meeting actions, 2 h/week: Our estimate: a few RFIs plus one design review write-up a week
- Reading and summarising long specs and tenders, 1.5 h/week: Our estimate: one long document a week, read and summarised for the team
These are our estimates, not measurements. We assumed the playbooks write the first draft and you still spend about half of today’s time checking values, assumptions and clause flags, editing and signing off. Summaries are cut by only a third because you still check the page references. That’s about 5 hours a week back. All four rows are covered by Basic; submittal reviews and arc-flash reports (Pro) aren’t counted.
Week: A standard 40-hour week, for scale (our assumption, not a survey figure). Yearly figures use 48 working weeks, monthly ones 4.
One Skill · 19 playbooks inside
Outputs and bullet points in. Reviewable drafts out.
One Skill in Claude. Paste the study output, the master spec or your notes; the router opens the matching playbook and returns the draft, with every value traced and every unconfirmed clause flagged.
From bullet points and your master spec to a draft you can mark up.
You ask
“Draft 26 24 16 Panelboards from our master for [Project]: 208Y/120 V, copper bus, 22 kA min, bolt-on breakers. Flag anything that clashes.”
You get
The section drafted from your master, with internal contradictions flagged and marked.
Playbook: spec-section-writer.md · in every plan
electrical-engineers/
├─ SKILL.md
the router: reads your request, opens the right playbook
├─ your profile, saved at setup
└─ playbooks/
├─ project-setup.md
├─ basis-of-design-report.md
├─ spec-section-writer.md
└─ … 16 more
See all 19 playbooks
In every planBasic · $29
- Jurisdiction, edition and firm style, locked before anything is drafted
project-setup.md - A first-draft basis of design from your bullet points
basis-of-design-report.md - Spec sections drafted from your master, checked for internal consistency
spec-section-writer.md - Load and cable write-ups around your numbers, not instead of them
load-cable-write-up.md - RFIs that get a straight answer
rfi-drafter.md - Review meetings turned into actions
design-review-notes.md - Fee proposals in your firm’s voice
mep-proposal-writer.md - A 300-page spec or tender summarised, with page references
long-document-summariser.md
Added in ProPro · $59
- Submittal comments in a table, against your spec section
submittal-comment-log.md - Panel schedules from your table, totals rechecked
panel-schedule-builder.md - A single-line diagram described in plain words
sld-narrative.md - Turn ETAP, SKM or EasyPower outputs into a study report
short-circuit-arc-flash-write-up.md - Commissioning procedures and reports from your checklists
commissioning-report.md - Catch spec-versus-drawing conflicts before the contractor does
spec-drawings-consistency-check.md - Cover reports for authority and utility submissions
authority-permit-documentation.md - Every unsupported clause reference flagged before it leaves the office
code-edition-guard.md - Code requirements kept separate from good practice
requirement-vs-recommendation.md - Change and variation notices with cost and time impact
change-variation-notice.md - Energy-code compliance narratives around your calc outputs
energy-code-compliance-narrative.md
Why not just ChatGPT?
Why not just use ChatGPT?
You could, and many engineers already do: more than half of senior engineers in Engineers Australia’s survey use generative AI to search, summarise and draft (Jan 2025). But in its own case study, checking accuracy was the hard part. Here’s why.
Generic AI
- It blends code editions without telling you which one it’s quoting: NEC 2023 or 2026, BS 7671 A3 or A4.
- It cites clause numbers with confidence, including ones that don’t exist. In one exam-prep vendor’s test (Dakota Prep, 2026), ChatGPT got over 60% of 100 NEC questions wrong, with invented article numbers.
- It isn’t a calculator you can sign off. In a vendor cable-modelling benchmark, ChatGPT and Claude both scored about 50% (ELEK, no published method).
- It sizes a cable without asking for Ze or circuit length and skips the max Zs check (documented by UK cert vendor Pro Certs).
The Electrical Engineer’s Pack
Why this works when generic AI didn’t
- 1
Your numbers, traced, never re-run
Design reports, load and cable write-ups and (in Pro) arc-flash reports are written around the data and software output you paste. Values are traced to their source. Calculations run only as checks on your inputs, with units and an assumptions table.
- 2
No clause it hasn’t seen
Project Setup locks jurisdiction and edition before anything is drafted. A reference only appears if it’s in text you pasted; everything else is [VERIFY CLAUSE]. In Pro, Code Edition Guard checks any document for references that don’t match the declared edition.
- 3
You review, sign and seal
Every output ends with a sign-off block: key statements, the source of each, every [VERIFY] item and the checks to make before the engineer in responsible charge signs. Nothing is ever presented as sealed.
How it works
Set up once. Then just ask.
No coding, no prompts to copy. You install it the way you would add a document to Claude.
- 1
Download the ZIP
One file: a single Claude Skill containing every playbook in your plan. No plugin, no subscription, nothing to install.
- 2
Upload it to Claude
Upload it once in Claude’s settings. Its router file (SKILL.md) reads each request and opens the matching playbook, so you never choose a file yourself. It works on every plan, including the free one, with code execution switched on.
- 3
Run Project Setup
Declare jurisdiction, code and edition, units, your firm’s style and header, and the list of data that must never be entered. Every playbook reads it before drafting.
Compare your options
What the other options cost
Prices are from published sources: BLS pay data (May 2025) and Augmented Trades’ September 2026 price check. Where we found no public price, we say so instead of guessing.
- Doing it yourselfAbout $58 an hourThat’s median US electrical engineer pay ($120,630 a year, BLS). Every hour of narrative is an hour off design work, or it moves to your evening.
- Estimating and takeoff software$99–1,250+ a monthBuilt for bids and quantities, not for reports and specs. And it bills every month.
- Dedicated MEP review toolsNo public price foundBuilt for submittal and drawing review at firm scale. A procurement decision, not something you buy for next week’s report.
- Code lookup and Q&A toolsA separate subscriptionUseful for finding the clause. They don’t draft the report around it. Paste the excerpt you rely on into this pack and it will cite it.
- ChatGPT Plus or Claude Pro on its own$20 a monthFast first drafts, but no locked edition, no assumptions table, no sign-off block, and every clause number left for you to check. You rebuild the prompt each project.
- The Electrical Engineer’s Pack$29 or $59, oncePay once and keep it. Pro costs about one hour of median engineer pay and less than one month of the cheapest estimating tool, and it runs in Claude, free plan included.
Pick your plan
One payment. Yours to keep.
About one hour of median US electrical engineer pay (BLS). Estimating software starts at $99 a month; this is one payment, yours to keep.
Pro costs, once
$59
Basic: $29 once
It pays for itself after
≈33 min
of time won back, at $110 for an engineer’s hour
Get back just 1 hour a month
$110
a month, against a one-time $59. Our estimate is ≈5 h a week.
Break-even = plan price ÷ the hourly value set in “What those hours are worth” above.
Basic
The core drafting work: reports, specs, write-ups and RFIs
$29one-time
8 ready-made playbooks
Try it on real work. Not for you? Full refund within 30 days.
- Project Setup: jurisdiction, edition, units and firm style, locked once
- Basis of design and design report narratives
- Spec sections with an internal consistency check
- Load and cable write-ups around your numbers
- RFIs with drawing and section references
- Design review notes and meeting actions
- MEP fee proposals in your firm’s style
- Long-document summaries with page references
- Every guardrail included
Pro
19 playbooks for the whole project, plus bonuses
$59one-time
All 19 playbooks
Only $30 more than Basic: +11 playbooks and the Pro bonuses below.
Try it on real work. Not for you? Full refund within 30 days.
- Everything in Basic
- Submittal comment logs against your spec section
- Panel schedules with totals rechecked
- Single-line diagram narratives
- Short-circuit and arc-flash study write-ups
- Commissioning procedures and reports
- Spec-versus-drawings consistency checks
- Authority, permit and utility documentation
- Code Edition Guard
- Requirement-versus-recommendation separator
- Change and variation notices
- Energy-code compliance narratives (ASHRAE 90.1/IECC, Part L, Section J, NECB)
- Project Setup starter profiles for the US, UK, Canada and Australia (code family names only, no code text)
- Worked examples for NEC, BS 7671, AS/NZS 3000 and CSA C22.1
- Sample outputs from every playbook, to compare against your own
- 12 months of playbook updates
30-day money-back guarantee
Use it on live projects for 30 days. If it isn’t saving you drafting time, email us and we’ll refund you in full.
- One-time payment, no subscription
- Works on free Claude
No Claude account yet?
And if I don’t have Claude?
Claude is Anthropic’s AI assistant. The free plan is enough to run The Electrical Engineer’s Pack: creating an account takes a minute, and you don’t need a credit card.
- Free plan works, no subscription needed to start
- Account ready immediately
- Paid plans only add more usage, for when you want it
- 1
Create a free account
Go to claude.ai and sign up with your email, Google or Apple account. It’s free and ready right away.
- 2
Turn on one setting
In Settings → Capabilities, switch on “Code execution and file creation”. Skills need it, and it’s free.
- 3
Upload your package
In Customize → Skills, click “+”, choose “Upload a skill” and select the ZIP you received. Then just ask.
Fair questions
What electrical engineers ask before buying
My stamp is my liability. I can’t hand that to an AI.
You don’t. Nothing is ever presented as sealed. Every output ends with a sign-off block listing the key statements, the source of each, the [VERIFY] items and the checks you need to make before you sign.
AI is unreliable at electrical calculations.
Agreed, which is why it doesn’t do authoritative calculations. It runs your inputs as code to check them, lists its assumptions and asks for what’s missing. Studies stay in your study software.
What about client and project data?
Project Setup records the data that must never be entered, and the playbooks use placeholders for client names and site addresses. Keep confidential project data out of consumer AI plans.
Our firm would need to approve a new tool.
There’s no new platform to approve: it’s a single Claude Skill, a ZIP of Markdown playbooks you upload to Claude once, paid once, with no subscription and no account with us to manage.
We use ChatGPT. Will this work there?
No. It’s built as a Claude Skill, and ChatGPT has no equivalent way to install it once and have it open the right playbook for each document. Claude’s free plan is enough to run it, an account takes about a minute, and you can keep ChatGPT for everything else.
Isn’t using AI for engineering documents cheating?
Not if it’s documented. The playbooks draft around your decisions and your numbers, and every output ends with an assumptions table and a sign-off block, so it’s clear what went in and who validated it.
Built for your rules
Your code, your edition, your units
Project Setup locks the code system and edition for the project. Every playbook reads it, and anything it can’t trace to text you supplied is flagged.
Your setup
US · NEC
The NEC cycle adopted for the project site (2017, 2020, 2023 or 2026) plus state or local amendments.
- Asks for the adopted NEC cycle and local amendments before drafting a single spec line
- Imperial units by default; spec sections drafted from your master in your firm’s format
- Sign-off block written for the PE in responsible charge, who reviews and seals
- Clause references only from excerpts you paste, otherwise [VERIFY CLAUSE]
Guardrails
Paperwork, never the stamp
These guardrails are in both plans. They’re the point of the product: structured playbooks that remove the ways AI usually goes wrong on engineering documents.
Sample verification block
From: Short-circuit & arc-flash study · Results section · excerpt
- Checked: 6 of 6 study values traced to the pasted ETAP output · none recalculated
- Checked: Utility fault current traced to the pasted utility letter
- Verify: MSB-1 device settings not field-confirmed · carried into the assumptions table
- Verify: Labeling reference left as [VERIFY CLAUSE] · NEC 2023 + state amendments per Project Setup
- 01
It never stamps, and never pretends to
Every document ends with a verification and sign-off block: key statements, the source of each, every [VERIFY] item, the human checks required and the engineer who signs and seals.
- 02
It doesn’t re-run your studies
Short-circuit and arc-flash reports are written around your ETAP, SKM or EasyPower outputs. Values are traced, not recalculated.
- 03
No clause it hasn’t seen
A code reference only appears if it’s in text you pasted or uploaded. Otherwise: [VERIFY CLAUSE]. No licensed code text is included.
- 04
Edition declared first
No playbook runs without jurisdiction and edition from Project Setup: NEC cycle plus local amendments, BS 7671 amendment, CSA C22.1:24 or AS/NZS 3000:2018 plus amendments.
- 05
Calculations only as checks
Numbers are run as code, with units, to check or explain your inputs. Never presented as authoritative sizing.
- 06
Asks for missing inputs
Ze, circuit length, installation method, ambient temperature, grouping, protective device type and rating, voltage, power factor. If it’s missing, it asks.
- 07
Assumptions table on every technical output
Each assumption, its source (you, a document or a declared default) and whether it needs verifying.
- 08
Client data stays out
Placeholders for client names and site addresses, and a reminder that consumer AI plans aren’t the place for confidential project data.
FAQ
Everything else
Didn’t find your answer? Email us:hello@summonskills.com
Which codes and editions are supported?
NEC (the cycle adopted for the site, plus local amendments), BS 7671:2018 with A2, A3 or A4, CSA C22.1:24 with provincial amendments, and AS/NZS 3000:2018 plus amendments. You declare it once in Project Setup.
Does the pack include code text?
No. No licensed standard text is included. Paste the excerpt you’re relying on and the playbook will cite it; anything else is marked [VERIFY CLAUSE].
Does it work with ETAP, SKM or EasyPower?
It works from their outputs. Paste or upload the results and the relevant playbook writes the report around them, tracing every value. It doesn’t connect to the software or re-run the study.
Can it do takeoffs or read drawings for quantities?
No. Quantity takeoff needs dedicated software. The pack drafts documents from the data and text you supply.
Does it work on the free Claude plan?
Yes. The Skill can be uploaded on every Claude plan, including free, with code execution switched on.
Does it batch-process a folder of submittals?
No. It handles one document at a time, done properly, so you review each output before it goes anywhere.
What happens when the code edition changes?
Change it in Project Setup and every playbook works to the new edition. The pack holds no code text, so nothing inside it silently goes stale.
Is it a subscription?
No. One payment, one download, yours to keep.
Hand off the write-up. Keep the judgement and the stamp.
By our estimate, about 5 hours a week of drafting back: 240 hours over a 48-week year. Your numbers, your edition, your seal; Claude drafts around them. Use it on live projects for 30 days, and if it isn’t saving you drafting time, email us for a full refund.
One payment, yours to keep · 30-day money-back guarantee