Smithery is now a part of Arcade.dev! Read more in our announcement here
Conduct Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for systematic identification and risk assessment of potential failures in designs, processes, or systems...
Conduct comprehensive FMEA using the AIAG-VDA 7-step methodology with structured Q&A guidance, quality scoring, and professional report generation.
User-provided FMEA data (failure descriptions, effects, causes, actions) flows into session JSON and HTML reports. When processing this data:
generate_report.py uses html.escape() on all user-provided fields to prevent XSS in generated reports.FMEA is a systematic, proactive method for evaluating a process, design, or system to identify where and how it might fail, and to assess the relative impact of different failures. It prioritizes actions based on risk severity, not just likelihood.
Key Principle: FMEA is a "living document" that evolves with the design/process and should be updated whenever changes occur.
| Type | Focus | Primary Application |
|---|---|---|
| DFMEA | Design/Product | Product development, component design |
| PFMEA | Process/Manufacturing | Production, assembly, service delivery |
| FMEA-MSR | Monitoring & System Response | Diagnostic coverage, fault handling |
At the start of each FMEA session, check knowledge-mcp availability and display one of:
When Connected:
✓ **Standards Database:** Connected
Available resources:
- AIAG-VDA FMEA Handbook (2019) - Action Priority methodology
- ISO 26262 - Automotive functional safety FMEA
- MIL-STD-882E - System safety analysis
You can request standards lookups via `/lookup-standard [query]`.
Auto-query prompts offered at Steps 4 (Failure Modes) and 5 (Rating Criteria).
When Unavailable:
⚠️ **Standards Database:** Unavailable
FMEA proceeds using embedded reference data from AIAG-VDA FMEA Handbook (2019):
- ✓ Action Priority decision tables (complete S×O→AP lookup)
- ✓ Severity/Occurrence/Detection rating scales (1-10 definitions)
- ✓ FMEA methodology guidance
Not available without standards database:
- ✗ Component-specific failure mode catalogs
- ✗ Industry benchmarks for occurrence probabilities
- ✗ Detailed regulatory requirement citations
To enable standards integration, ensure knowledge-mcp is configured.
Important: Display status banner ONCE at session start (after 5T's collection, before Step 1). Do NOT repeat at each step.
Collect from user:
Additional Planning Questions:
Quality Gate: Clear scope definition with documented boundaries, team assignments, and timeline.
For DFMEA - Collect:
For PFMEA - Collect:
Output: Structure tree or block diagram showing:
Collect for each element:
DFMEA Function Format: "Function of [component] is to [verb] [noun] per [specification]" PFMEA Function Format: "Function of [process step] is to [verb] [product characteristic] per [specification]"
Quality Gate: Every element has clearly defined, measurable functions linked to requirements.
For each function, establish the Failure Chain:
4a. Failure Mode - How can the function fail?
Optional Standards Lookup (Step 4)
When standards database is connected, offer:
Would you like me to search for common failure modes for this component/function type from industry standards (AIAG-VDA, ISO 26262, MIL-STD-882)?
- Yes: Query standards database and present relevant failure mode catalogs with citations
- No: Proceed with failure modes you identify based on your design knowledge
Your choice:
Query behavior:
knowledge_search with query "common failure modes for [component/function]", filter by domain="fmea"Result presentation (if queried):
4b. Failure Effects - What are the consequences?
4c. Failure Causes - Why would the failure occur?
Documentation Format:
Effect (Next Higher Level) ← Failure Mode (Focus Element) ← Cause (Next Lower Level)
5a. Current Controls
Identify existing controls for each cause:
Optional Standards Lookup (Step 5)
When standards database is connected, offer before rating assignment:
Would you like me to retrieve the detailed severity/occurrence/detection rating criteria from industry standards?
This provides:
Full 1-10 scale definitions with examples
Domain-specific criteria (automotive, aerospace, medical)
Boundary conditions for rating assignments
Yes: Query standards database for rating scale definitions
No: Use embedded rating tables from references/rating-tables.md
Your choice:
Query behavior:
knowledge_search with query "[DFMEA|PFMEA] severity rating criteria scale 1-10 definitions"Result presentation (if queried):
5b. Rating Assignment
Assign ratings using the standard 1-10 scales (see references/rating-tables.md):
| Rating | Scale | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Severity (S) | 1-10 | Higher = More severe effect |
| Occurrence (O) | 1-10 | Higher = More frequent |
| Detection (D) | 1-10 | Higher = Less likely to detect |
5c. Action Priority (AP) Determination
Use the AP tables (replacing traditional RPN) to assign priority:
| Priority | Meaning | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| H (High) | Highest priority | Must identify action to improve controls |
| M (Medium) | Medium priority | Should identify action or justify current controls |
| L (Low) | Low priority | Could improve controls at discretion |
Note: AP prioritizes Severity first, then Occurrence, then Detection. Unlike RPN (S×O×D), AP ensures safety-critical issues (high S) are never ignored regardless of O and D.
AP Output Format (with citations):
When presenting AP results, always include methodology citation:
**Action Priority:** H (High) based on S=8, O=6, D=4 per AIAG-VDA 2019 Table 5.4
Per AIAG-VDA methodology, High priority items MUST identify action to improve
Prevention Controls, Detection Controls, or both. Action cannot be closed without
documented risk mitigation.
For Medium and Low priorities:
**Action Priority:** M (Medium) based on S=7, O=4, D=3 per AIAG-VDA 2019 Table 5.4
Per AIAG-VDA methodology, Medium priority items SHOULD identify action or justify
why current controls are adequate with documented rationale.
AP vs RPN Clarification:
When user context suggests RPN familiarity, include explanation:
This analysis uses Action Priority (AP) methodology from AIAG-VDA 2019, which prioritizes severity first. This replaced the legacy Risk Priority Number (RPN = S×O×D) from FMEA-4 (2008).
For this failure mode:
- AP: H (High) — severity-driven prioritization
- RPN: 192 (for reference if your organization still tracks RPN)
AP ensures safety-critical items (S ≥ 9) are never ignored regardless of occurrence or detection ratings.
Provide RPN for reference when:
Citation Source:
AP calculated using embedded decision table from references/rating-tables.md (AIAG-VDA 2019).
Use /lookup-standard Action Priority AIAG-VDA to view full table from standards text.
For High and Medium AP items:
Identify Actions: What specific actions will reduce risk?
Assign Responsibility: Who owns each action? Target completion date?
Implement and Verify: Document actions taken
Re-evaluate: Assign new S, O, D ratings after implementation
Action Types:
Generate final FMEA documentation including:
Run: python scripts/generate_report.py to create professional HTML/PDF output.
Each analysis is scored on six dimensions (see references/quality-rubric.md):
| Dimension | Weight | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Structure Analysis | 15% | Completeness of system/process breakdown |
| Function Definition | 15% | Clarity, measurability of functions |
| Failure Chain Logic | 20% | Correct Mode→Effect→Cause relationships |
| Control Identification | 15% | Completeness of prevention/detection controls |
| Rating Consistency | 20% | Appropriate, justified S/O/D ratings |
| Action Effectiveness | 15% | Specific, assigned, measurable actions |
Scoring Scale: Each dimension rated 1-5 (Inadequate to Excellent)
Run python scripts/score_analysis.py with FMEA data to calculate scores.
See references/common-pitfalls.md for:
See references/examples.md for worked examples:
Query the knowledge base for FMEA-related standards information at any point in the analysis.
Syntax: /lookup-standard [natural language query]
Examples:
/lookup-standard DFMEA severity rating criteria for safety-critical systems/lookup-standard common failure modes for brushless DC motors/lookup-standard Action Priority calculation AIAG-VDA 2019/lookup-standard difference between prevention controls and detection controls/lookup-standard what does occurrence rating 6 mean/lookup-standard ISO 26262 ASIL determination for motor controllerResponse Format:
## Standards Lookup: [query]
### Result 1 (92% relevant)
**Source:** AIAG-VDA FMEA Handbook (2019), Section 5.2.1
[Content excerpt with relevant context]
### Result 2 (87% relevant)
**Source:** ISO 26262-9:2018, Section 8.4.3
[Content excerpt with relevant context]
---
Showing 3 of 7 results. Say "show more" for additional results.
When to Use:
No Results Response:
## Standards Lookup: [query]
No direct matches found for "[query]".
Did you mean:
- "failure modes electric motor"
- "severity rating automotive FMEA"
- "AIAG-VDA Action Priority"
Try refining with specific standard names (AIAG-VDA, ISO 26262) or broader terms.
Availability: Requires knowledge-mcp connection. If unavailable:
Standards database not available. Use embedded reference data in
references/rating-tables.mdandreferences/common-pitfalls.md.
See references/rating-tables.md for complete tables including:
python scripts/calculate_fmea.py --mode rpnpython scripts/calculate_fmea.py --mode appython scripts/calculate_fmea.py --mode summaryCitation Best Practices:
