How to use Claude to fit a case from datasheets
Claude Code designed an OpenSCAD snap enclosure from drawings and fit photographs; seven revisions corrected vents, solder clearances and board retention.
dominic-boettger.com
Suggested prompt
Suggested prompt written by Agents In Use, not the source author. Replace bracketed inputs and review tool permissions first.
Design an OpenSCAD snap enclosure for these exact boards. Read the official mechanical drawings as images and cite every dimension in comments. Render the vents, connector face, solder-pin supports and lid clearances. Revise from our fit photographs and wait for physical approval before final export.
Reach people exploring AI agents
See placements →What happened
Seven design revisions and three prints produced a fitted snap enclosure; the account documents the physical fit rather than thermal or sensing qualification.
Reported by Dominic Böttger — Personal blogHow the agent did it
- Böttger supplied official mechanical drawings after rejecting invented dimensions in Claude’s first design.
- Claude rendered OpenSCAD revisions to inspect airflow openings, support geometry and cable clearance.
- The owner printed and fitted the parts, then returned photographs and interference details for further revisions.
Where a person stepped in
Böttger chose the mechanical constraints, checked official dimensions, printed successive versions and physically fitted the boards before accepting the enclosure.
Dominic Böttger used Claude Code and OpenSCAD to design a screwless enclosure for an ESP32-C6 board and a Sensirion SEN66 air-quality module. The two chambers separated the electronics from the sensor airflow. The useful evidence came from repeated physical fits, rather than a convincing initial rendering.
Claude initially invented board dimensions. Böttger required official mechanical drawings, read as images, and dimensions documented in the source. Command-line renders then exposed blocked vents, a misplaced cable duct and lid ribs that interfered with the fan.
Printed parts revealed further mistakes. The connector was on the wrong face, support pads conflicted with solder pins, and presumed housing notches were actually a narrower section. The design changed to retaining ribs and a lid. A wide USB opening also allowed the board to escape, so it became smaller windows separated by a strut.
After seven revisions and three prints, the account shows the parts fitting in a snap enclosure. Böttger supplied datasheets, photographs and actual assembly feedback. The result establishes a fitted enclosure, without claiming validated thermal performance or sensor accuracy.
Prompt
Suggested prompt (written by Agents In Use, not the author's)
Source: Personal blog · Dominic Böttger
Frequently asked questions
Why were official drawings needed?
The initial dimensions were invented and did not match the board.
What did printing reveal?
Connector orientation, solder-pin interference and retention geometry needed correction.
Was thermal performance measured?
The account establishes fit and airflow geometry, without a thermal qualification result.
More details
About this account
Böttger supplied official mechanical drawings after rejecting invented dimensions in Claude’s first design. Claude rendered OpenSCAD revisions to inspect airflow openings, support geometry and cable clearance.
Original dated build account opened. Revision and print counts are author reports; no independent printing or thermal testing was performed. Suggested prompt written by Agents In Use; no original task prompt was found in the verified text.
Credit: Dominic Böttger — Personal blog
Source published 30 Jul 2026
Source checked 14 Oct 2026
Tools and topics
Claude Code · OpenSCAD · ESP32-C6 · Sensirion SEN66 · 3D printer
mechanical design · datasheets · printed enclosure
Editorial completeness: 100/100. Measures documented fields, not agent performance or verified outcomes.