Clarify hardware definition ownership

[nicksan222]

Goal

Make hardware definitions easy to find and change by hand. Each approved component and PCB part has a named owner, shared dimensions are grouped by physical object, and panel buttons use one typed header pin as the source of their GPIO assignment.

Changes

• Split shared product specs and PCB bindings into per-part modules; keep explicit registries for lookup.
• Split board, case, panel, tile plate, and print measurements into named dimension modules while preserving the shared API.
• Move PCB validation and routing policy out of composition/catalog files; validate component counts per assembly.
• Make LED-link identities addressable by square endpoints while preserving existing net names and generated board identity.
• Keep the existing hardware documentation links current; no separate editing guide is needed.

Verification

• Shared: Ruff, strict Basedpyright, 24 tests, dimension validation.
• CAD: Ruff, strict Basedpyright, 59 tests, Blender generation. Four renders are pixel identical to main.
• PCB: full review including ERC, DRC, schematic parity, unit and SPICE tests. Semantic comparison reports no electrical, placement, rule, or copper changes.
• git diff --check passed. The host-wide commit hook could not finish because the host lacks Ruff; hardware checks ran successfully in the project verification container.

[cursor]

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Bugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit.

A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard.

(requestId: serverGenReqId_49daf3b3-5c30-48f6-ad88-af221af378b9)

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-30T11:03:26.592972Z	1fc94f8	PR opened

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[cursor]

Approved. Cursor Bugbot was skipped, so that signal was not used; remaining policy and review state do not require human review. No reviewers were assigned.

  

_{Sent by Cursor Approval Agent: Pull Request Router and Approver}