Specifications and drawings together.
Requirements, notes, schedules, details, and geometry stay in the same review context.
Catch design risk before it becomes rework.
Specset reviews specifications and drawings together, surfaces cited conflicts, code issues, missing information, and constructability risks, then gives your team a ranked queue to validate.
1 of 8
Review the handoffs, not just the pages.
The agent checks the gaps between architectural, structural, MEP, fire, civil, and site design.
Every finding earns a decision.
Open the source, add context, then confirm, downgrade, or reject the issue.
Trusted by the teams delivering public work
“The first review surfaced conflicts our team had walked past three times. Now nothing goes out the door without a Specset pass.”
22K+Design review issues filed, each cited to the governing paragraph and priced
$120M+Rework exposure identified before it reached the field
01 · Coverage model
A review plan built from the project itself.
The agent inventories the specifications, sheets, and supporting documents, plans by discipline, then checks the handoffs where coordination risk hides.
Project inventory
Specs
Technical requirementsSections · schedules · procedures
Plans
Drawing sheetsNotes · details · schedules · geometry
Review planner
Plan from the projectEvery applicable discipline and trade
ArchitecturalStructuralMEP + fireCivil + site
Issue register ConflictSpecs ↔ drawings Code complianceProvision + applicability ConstructabilityCross-discipline fit Missing informationAfter project-wide search
Search before filing · visually verify drawings · consolidate repeated defects
Missing means missing from the project.
General notes, schedules, adjacent sections, and related disciplines are searched before a gap becomes an issue.
Drawing evidence is inspected as a drawing.
Geometry, details, schedules, and callouts are verified on the sheet, not inferred from extracted text alone.
Zero findings is a valid result.
Best-practice preferences stay out. Repeated defects consolidate into one decision with every affected location attached.
02 · Project-level view
See the risk portfolio, not a flat issue dump.
Active issues stay grouped by discipline and ranked alongside rework exposure, impact, severity, and review progress.
✦ AI analysisUpdated today
⇩ Export reportRework cost exposure$4.8M–$18MIdentified across 168 findings
+ Risk exposure$1.9M–$8.6MAcross 57 findings
Draft 31 Open 88 Closed 22
153 active findings
52 Life-safety61 Coordination44 Procurement
Corridor door rating conflicts with hardware schedule#014 · Life-safety · Conflict
$25K–$100KRoof overflow path is missing at the low point#027 · Schedule · Missing info
$10K–$50KExit passageway narrows at the security vestibule#086 · Life-safety · Code compliance
$50K–$250KDuct bank crosses the transfer girder clearance zone#112 · Coordination · Constructability
$100K–$500KGenerator day tank is missing transfer controls#147 · Commissioning · Missing info
$25K–$100KAccessible route exceeds cross-slope at the plaza drain#203 · Accessibility · Conflict
$10K–$50KDirect rework stays separate from contingent risk.
Prioritize the costs most likely to become real first.
Discipline, impact, severity, and type stay filterable.
Move from the portfolio view to the exact work queue.
Team decisions are visible at project level.
See what is unreviewed, confirmed, trivial, or rejected.
03 · Source-open review
Open every finding on the evidence.
Auto-open puts the cited drawing or specification beside the issue. Review the basis, add a note, and make the call without losing your place.
01Source document opened to the cited location
02Cost, impact, discipline, and evidence together
03Confirm, mark trivial, or reject in one pass
Door schedule · A-601
4 of 14‹›Auto-open
RIDGEVIEW CENTERA-601 · DOOR SCHEDULE
DOOR AND FRAME SCHEDULE
DOORLOCATIONRATINGHARDWARE
101Main entryNRSET 01
122Exit stair90 MINSET 04
214Rated corridor90 MINSET 07 · 45 MIN
216Electrical45 MINSET 09
21490 MIN
04 · Review formats
Match the review to the design stage.
Start with the highest-risk handoffs, lead with every drawing sheet, or run an exhaustive pass across the complete design. Every format returns cited findings to the same review queue.
01 · Agent-plannedFocused
Design quality review
Focus the review where the project is most exposed.
Specset inventories the project, proposes a discipline-by-discipline plan, then reviews specifications, selected sheets, and the handoffs between them.
- Specifications plus targeted drawing passes
- Coordination, constructability, and biddability
- Best for early and mid-design QA/QC
Plan → Review → Verify
02 · Drawing-ledEvery sheet
Drawing coordination review
Check each sheet and the disciplines it must coordinate with.
Architectural, structural, civil, MEP, and fire sheets are reviewed individually, then bundled by level or area for cross-discipline coordination.
- Every drawing sheet gets its own review
- Same-level and same-area coordination bundles
- Clashes, conflicting values, and broken references
Sheets → Coordinate → Reconcile
03 · ExhaustiveFull design
Deep design review
Put the complete specification and drawing set through the review.
A longer-running pass checks every technical specification section and drawing sheet, then consolidates repeated defects into one cited project register.
- Every technical section and drawing sheet
- Internal consistency plus cross-document conflicts
- Best for late-stage and pre-issue checkpoints
Full set → Exhaustive scan → Report
Across every formatReview lenses
CoordinationDisciplines agree
ConstructabilityThe design can be built
Code + criteriaRequirements hold
BiddabilityScope is clear enough to price
Common questions
What teams ask about design quality review.
01What documents does the review cover?
The full record: every specification section, every drawing sheet, plus addenda, special provisions, and RFI answers conformed into one governing set. The review plans one agent per section and per sheet, so coverage is complete rather than sampled.
02How is this different from a keyword or checklist scan?
The agent plans the review from the project itself. It reads requirements in context, checks the handoffs between disciplines, and inspects drawing evidence visually instead of matching words. Your own QA checklists can be added as skills and run alongside the project-driven plan.
03How do you keep the findings from being noisy?
Every candidate finding faces a second, independently scoped agent whose only job is to disprove it. The agent also searches the whole project before filing anything as missing, and repeated defects are consolidated into one issue. Rejected findings are archived with their reasoning so you can audit the calls.
04What do we actually receive?
A ranked issue register with rework and risk cost exposure, filterable by discipline, severity, and type. Every finding opens on the cited specification paragraph or drawing location, and each one can be confirmed, dismissed, or downgraded by your reviewer.
05When in the design should we run it?
At every milestone. Teams run the highest-risk handoffs at 50 percent, drawing-led coordination review at 90 percent, and the exhaustive deep review before issue for construction. All formats file into the same issue queue, so later runs build on earlier decisions.
06Can it review non-standard specifications?
Yes. Caltrans, WSDOT, FDOT, UFGS, and BNSF formats are already in production, along with special provisions amended into standard sections. The review works from the conformed record, whatever format the owner issues.
Start with a test project
Run a recent design set through the review.
We'll return a prioritized issue register with citations, impact, and a clear human review path.