The quality check looks for drawing problems, such as a connection running through a card or a label covering another label. It helps you decide what to fix and lets Auto-fix compare possible repairs.
The engine compares hard findings, soft findings, warnings, then penalty points, from left to right. Lower is better. The first difference decides, so fewer hard problems always wins, regardless of the later columns.
The first different column decides
Hard findings first
1 hard collision
3 soft crossings
WinnerBCandidate B wins because hard findings are compared before every other column.
Counts before weights
1 soft crossing
Winner2 soft overlaps
ACandidate A wins with fewer soft findings, even though its penalty is larger.
Penalty breaks the tie
1 soft crossing
1 soft overlap
WinnerBThe counts tie, so Candidate B wins on the lower penalty.
Read the result
| Result | What it means | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Invalid source | The diagram cannot be compiled | Fix the reported syntax or validation error |
| Hard finding | Something breaks the drawing, such as a detached connection or a line through a card | Fix this first |
| Soft finding | The drawing works but is harder to read, for example because lines cross | Adjust the layout or routing |
| Warning | The engine reached a limit or used a fallback | Read the message; a simpler view may help |
| No findings | The checks found no drawing problems | Review whether the architecture matches your intent |
A clean drawing does not prove that the system is secure, economical, or faithful to the brief; review the architecture separately.
To improve a drawing, start with its first reported problem. Shorten a label, adjust a group, or unpin a route that no longer fits. Auto-fix can try these kinds of view changes for you.