GitHub for Hardware Engineering
Flow Engineering
Flow is trying to become the system of record for hardware changes, not just another documentation tool. In practice that means requirements, diagrams, tests, and design data stay linked, so when an engineer edits a CAD model, spreadsheet, or simulation input, the platform can recompute pass fail checks immediately instead of waiting for a manual review cycle. That is the core reason the GitHub comparison fits. It turns scattered engineering artifacts into a tracked, reviewable change graph.
-
The workflow is concrete. Teams import requirements from Excel or CSV, attach units and tolerance ranges, connect tools like MATLAB, Onshape, and Jira, then watch budgets and verification status update in the browser with green red indicators and alerts in Slack or Teams. Version control matters because each requirement revision stays tied to downstream architecture and test evidence.
-
The harder part is continuous verification. Software CI runs code after every commit. Flow applies the same idea to hardware engineering by polling connected design files and simulations through APIs, then checking whether a design change still meets mass, power, thermal, or interface limits. That shortens feedback loops from review meetings to near real time checks.
-
This is becoming a strategic battleground. Altium acquired Valispace and turned it into Requirements Portal inside Altium 365, with built in requirements traceability and verification. That shows larger design platforms want to own the same requirements layer, because whoever controls that layer can sit above CAD, electronics, testing, and manufacturing workflows.
The next step is for this layer to move from tracking requirements to actively generating engineering work. As Flow adds AI generated test plans, interface documents, and what if analysis on top of its live verification graph, the winning platform will be the one that turns every hardware change into an immediate engineering decision, not just a recorded edit.