i18n/de/skills/analyze-magnetic-field/SKILL.md
Berechnen and visualize magnetic fields produced by current distributions using the Biot-Savart law, Ampere's law, and magnetic dipole approximations. Verwenden wenn computing B-fields from arbitrary current geometries, exploiting symmetry with Ampere's law, analyzing superposition of multiple sources, or characterizing magnetic materials durch permeability, B-H curves, and hysteresis behavior.
npx skillsauth add pjt222/agent-almanac analyze-magnetic-fieldInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Berechnen the magnetic field produced by a given current distribution by characterizing die Quelle geometry, selecting the appropriate law (Biot-Savart for arbitrary geometries, Ampere's law for high-symmetry configurations), evaluating field integrals, checking limiting cases, incorporating magnetic material effects where relevant, and visualizing das Ergebnising field-line topology.
Fully specify die Quelle vor selecting a method:
## Source Characterization
- **Current type**: [line I / surface K / volume J]
- **Geometry**: [parametric description]
- **Coordinate system**: [and justification]
- **Symmetries**: [translational / rotational / reflection]
- **Nonzero B-components by symmetry**: [list]
- **Current continuity**: [verified / issue noted]
Erwartet: A complete geometric description of the current distribution with coordinate system chosen, symmetries cataloged, and current continuity verified.
Bei Fehler: If the geometry is too complex for a closed-form parametric description, discretize into short straight segments (numerical Biot-Savart). If current continuity is violated, add displacement current or return charge accumulation terms vor proceeding.
Waehlen die Methode that matches das Problem's symmetry and complexity:
Ampere's law (high symmetry): Verwenden wenn the current distribution has sufficient symmetry that B kann pulled out of the line integral. Applicable cases:
Biot-Savart law (general): Use for arbitrary geometries where Ampere's law cannot simplify:
Magnetic dipole approximation (far field): Verwenden wenn the observation point is far from die Quelle (r >> source dimension d):
Superposition: For multiple sources, compute B from each independently and sum vectorially. Linearity of Maxwell's equations guarantees this is exact.
## Method Selection
- **Primary method**: [Ampere / Biot-Savart / dipole]
- **Justification**: [symmetry argument or distance criterion]
- **Expected complexity**: [closed-form / single integral / numerical]
- **Fallback method**: [if primary fails or for cross-validation]
Erwartet: A justified choice of method with a clear statement of why the chosen law is appropriate for das Problem's symmetry level.
Bei Fehler: If Ampere's law is chosen but the symmetry is insufficient (B cannot be extracted from the integral), fall back to Biot-Savart. If die Quelle geometry is too complex for analytic Biot-Savart, discretize numerically.
Ausfuehren the calculation using die Methode selected in Step 2:
Ampere's law path: Fuer jede Amperian loop:
Biot-Savart integration: Fuer jede field point r:
Dipole calculation:
Superposition assembly: Sum contributions from all sources at each observation point. Verfolgen components separately to preserve cancellation accuracy.
## Field Calculation
- **Integral setup**: [explicit expression]
- **Evaluation method**: [analytic / numeric with N segments]
- **Result**: B(r) = [expression with units]
- **Convergence check** (if numerical): [N vs. 2N comparison]
Erwartet: An explicit expression for B(r) at the observation points, with correct units (Tesla or Gauss) and a convergence check for numerical results.
Bei Fehler: If the integral diverges, check for a missing regularization (e.g., das Feld on the wire itself diverges for an infinitely thin wire -- use finite wire radius). If numerical results oscillate with N, the integrand has a near-singularity that requires adaptive quadrature or analytical subtraction of the singular part.
Verifizieren das Ergebnis gegen known physics vor trusting it:
Far-field dipole limit: At large r, any localized current distribution should produce a field that matches the magnetic dipole formula. Berechnen B from your result in the limit r -> infinity and compare with (mu_0 / 4 pi) * [3(m . r_hat) r_hat - m] / r^3.
Near-field infinite-wire limit: Schliessen to a long straight segment of the conductor (distance rho << length L), das Feld should approach B = mu_0 I / (2 pi rho). Check this for the relevant portion of your geometry.
On-axis special cases: For loops and solenoids, the on-axis field has simple closed forms:
Symmetry consistency: Sicherstellen, dass components predicted to vanish by symmetry (Step 1) are indeed zero in the computed result. A nonzero forbidden component indicates an error.
Dimensional analysis: Sicherstellen, dass B has units of Tesla. Every term should carry mu_0 * [current] / [length] or equivalent.
## Limiting Case Verification
| Case | Condition | Expected | Computed | Match |
|------|-----------|----------|----------|-------|
| Far-field dipole | r >> d | mu_0 m / (4 pi r^3) scaling | [result] | [Yes/No] |
| Near-field wire | rho << L | mu_0 I / (2 pi rho) | [result] | [Yes/No] |
| On-axis formula | [geometry] | [known result] | [result] | [Yes/No] |
| Symmetry zeros | [component] | 0 | [result] | [Yes/No] |
| Units | -- | Tesla | [check] | [Yes/No] |
Erwartet: All limiting cases match. The field has the correct units, symmetry, and asymptotic behavior.
Bei Fehler: A failed limit indicates an error in the integral setup or evaluation. The most common causes are: wrong sign in the cross product, missing factor of 2 or pi, incorrect limits of integration, or a coordinate system mismatch zwischen source and field point parameterizations.
Erweitern die Analyse to include material effects and produce field visualizations:
Linear magnetic materials: Replace mu_0 with mu = mu_r * mu_0 inside the material. Anwenden boundary conditions at material interfaces:
Nonlinear materials (B-H curves): For ferromagnetic cores:
Demagnetization effects: For finite-geometry magnetic materials (e.g., short rods, spheres), the internal field is reduced by the demagnetization factor N_d: H_internal = H_applied - N_d * M.
Field visualization:
Physical intuition check: Bestaetigen, dass das Feld pattern makes qualitative sense. The field sollte strongest near the current source, should circulate around currents (right-hand rule), and should decay with distance.
## Material Effects and Visualization
- **Material model**: [vacuum / linear mu_r / nonlinear B-H / hysteretic]
- **Boundary conditions applied**: [list interfaces]
- **Visualization**: [field lines / magnitude contour / both]
- **Div B = 0 check**: [field lines close / verified numerically]
Erwartet: A complete field solution einschliesslich material effects where relevant, with a visualization that shows closed field lines consistent with div B = 0 and qualitative behavior matching physical intuition.
Bei Fehler: If field lines nicht close, the calculation has a divergence error -- recheck the integral or numerical method. If the material introduces unexpected field amplification, verify that mu_r is applied only inside the material volume and that boundary conditions are korrekt enforced at every interface.
solve-electromagnetic-induction -- use the computed B-field to analyze time-varying flux and induced EMFformulate-maxwell-equations -- generalize to the full set of Maxwell's equations einschliesslich displacement current and wave propagationdesign-electromagnetic-device -- apply magnetic field analysis to the design of electromagnets, motors, and transformersformulate-quantum-problem -- quantum treatment of magnetic interactions (Zeeman effect, spin-orbit coupling)testing
Launch all available agents in parallel waves for open-ended hypothesis generation on problems where the correct domain is unknown. Use when facing a cross-domain problem with no clear starting point, when single-agent approaches have stalled, or when diverse perspectives are more valuable than deep expertise. Produces a ranked hypothesis set with convergence analysis and adversarial refinement.
tools
Write integration tests for a Node.js CLI application using the built-in node:test module. Covers the exec helper pattern, output assertions, filesystem state verification, cleanup hooks, JSON output parsing, error case testing, and state restoration after destructive tests. Use when adding tests to an existing CLI, testing a new command, verifying adapter behavior across frameworks, or setting up CI for a CLI tool.
development
Screen a proposed trademark for conflicts and distinctiveness before filing. Covers trademark database searches (TMview, WIPO Global Brand Database, USPTO TESS), distinctiveness analysis using the Abercrombie spectrum, likelihood of confusion assessment using DuPont factors and EUIPO relative grounds, common law rights evaluation, and goods/services overlap analysis. Produces a conflict report with a risk matrix. Use before adopting a new brand name, logo, or slogan — distinct from patent prior art search, which uses different databases, legal frameworks, and analysis methods.
tools
Scaffold a new CLI command using Commander.js with options, action handler, three output modes (human-readable, quiet, JSON), and optional ceremony variant. Covers command naming, option design, shared context patterns, error handling, and integration testing. Use when adding a command to an existing Commander.js CLI, designing a new CLI tool from scratch, or standardizing command structure across a multi-command CLI.