Skip to content
Avecas

ATPG

ATPG

Generate and debug patterns against agreed fault models.

Discuss your requirements
Developer reviewing source code on a computer display

Representative photograph · Developer reviewing source code on a computer display.

THE ENGINEERING SCOPE

Built around
your requirements.

Explore the approach ↓
01

Technical starting point

Scan netlist, libraries, test protocol and fault targets.

02

Acceptance evidence

Coverage categories, aborted faults, pattern count and capture power.

03

Delivery package

Patterns, coverage reports, fault classification and simulation evidence.

CLIENT GUIDE

Scope atpg with the right evidence.

Use these technical checkpoints to make the first project review productive.

Provide before the review

  • Scan netlist
  • Libraries
  • Test protocol and fault targets

Review during execution

  • Coverage categories
  • Aborted faults
  • Pattern count and capture power

Agree for delivery

  • Patterns
  • Coverage reports
  • Fault classification and simulation evidence

HOW WE WORK

Clarity at each stage.

01

Check design rules

The initial review establishes the baseline using scan netlist, libraries, test protocol and fault targets. Record gaps and dependencies before implementation.

02

Generate patterns

Carry out the agreed work against the reviewed baseline. For atpg, keep the interfaces and configuration used by this stage visible to the receiving team.

03

Classify untested faults

Retain the intermediate artifacts and review coverage categories, aborted faults, pattern count and capture power. Investigate failures before using these results as an input to the next stage.

04

Validate selected patterns

Package patterns, coverage reports, fault classification and simulation evidence. Review unresolved findings against the agreed acceptance criteria and assign ownership for follow-up.

PROJECT DECISIONS

Know what moves the work forward.

Use these gates to agree readiness, review evidence and responsibility at each stage.

  1. 01

    Baseline ready

    Are the starting inputs complete enough to proceed?

    Review method and evidence

    Scan netlist, libraries, test protocol and fault targets.

    Review evidence

    Record input revisions, missing material and who can resolve each dependency.

  2. 02

    Implementation reviewed

    Has the work addressed the agreed technical objective?

    Review method and evidence

    Generate and debug patterns against agreed fault models.

    Review evidence

    Keep the intermediate artifacts with review comments and the decisions that changed the design.

  3. 03

    Evidence checked

    Can the result be reproduced and interpreted?

    Review method and evidence

    Coverage categories, aborted faults, pattern count and capture power.

    Review evidence

    Capture the configuration, expected result, observed result and unresolved findings.

  4. 04

    Handoff accepted

    Can the receiving team use the delivery package?

    Review method and evidence

    Patterns, coverage reports, fault classification and simulation evidence.

    Review evidence

    Review build or execution instructions, known limitations and ownership of follow-up actions.

INPUTS & OUTPUTS

What the work involves.

The final statement of work defines the scope and acceptance criteria.

Client inputs
Scan netlist, libraries, test protocol and fault targets.
Engineering sequence
Check design rules; generate patterns; classify untested faults; validate selected patterns.
Outputs to agree
Patterns, coverage reports, fault classification and simulation evidence.

TECHNICAL DECISIONS

Planning ATPG.

Read the technical guide

The engineering objective

Generate and debug patterns against agreed fault models.

The work starts from scan netlist, libraries, test protocol and fault targets. The team should identify the authoritative revision of each input and record any assumptions needed to proceed. This prevents a later result from being interpreted against a different specification or configuration.

What needs technical attention

Coverage targets must distinguish untestable faults from faults left undetected by the pattern set.

The review centres on coverage categories, aborted faults, pattern count and capture power. Each finding should identify the input revision, observed behaviour and supporting evidence. Distinguish a confirmed defect from a configuration issue, an unsupported case or an open engineering question before deciding how to resolve it.

How the work is reviewed

The practical sequence is: check design rules; generate patterns; classify untested faults; validate selected patterns. Intermediate reviews allow the client to resolve decisions while changes are still manageable. If an input changes, identify the affected activities and repeat the checks that depend on it.

The expected package comprises patterns, coverage reports, fault classification and simulation evidence. Acceptance criteria should specify what the receiving team needs to reproduce, inspect or integrate these artifacts. Include known limitations and outstanding actions in that package, rather than assuming that delivery of a file implies acceptance.

Connect test intent to usable manufacturing patterns

Test logic has to work within the design’s clock, reset and power architecture. Identify which test modes are legal, how they are entered, which domains remain powered and how functional interfaces are isolated. Review the sources of unknown values and the controls needed to make scan shifting and capture deterministic. A test mode that works only under an undocumented assumption is difficult to transfer to another team.

Coverage discussions should name the fault model, denominator and classification of excluded or untestable faults. Pattern generation can expose design-rule issues, uncontrollable signals or protocol assumptions that require architecture changes. Separate those causes from faults that simply need better stimulus or additional ATPG effort. Preserve enough detail for a reviewer to understand why a target was or was not met.

Pattern count, tester memory, shift frequency and capture activity affect whether a pattern set is practical. Agree these constraints early and revisit them after integration. The handoff should connect patterns to the exact netlist, test protocol and configuration used to generate them. Simulation results, mode-entry checks and known restrictions should travel with the pattern package so downstream teams can reproduce the intended test conditions.

An illustrative review scenario

A memory output that is uncontrolled during scan capture can contaminate a compressed response. Review whether the correct solution is mode control, isolation, a justified mask or an architecture change. Check the resulting fault coverage and power implications rather than masking broadly to obtain a clean simulation. The example illustrates a diagnostic approach, not a universal test insertion recipe.

BEFORE WE BEGIN

Project questions.

A clear conversation is the start of a strong engineering relationship.

What inputs are needed for atpg?

The starting review needs scan netlist, libraries, test protocol and fault targets. Share the current revision and known limitations so the scope reflects the actual design state.

What does the atpg handoff include?

The statement of work can define patterns, coverage reports, fault classification and simulation evidence. The final package should include review results and any open actions.

Which technical risks need particular attention?

Coverage targets must distinguish untestable faults from faults left undetected by the pattern set.

Can we start with a focused technical review?

The first work package can be a review of the available inputs and the engineering questions that must be resolved. Agree its boundaries, access requirements and expected findings before committing to a larger implementation. A review should leave an actionable list of decisions, dependencies and next steps.

How are changes and unresolved findings handled?

Tie each finding to the relevant revision and supporting evidence. A change should identify the affected interfaces, activities and checks. Confirm its effect on scope and delivery with the responsible owner. At handoff, distinguish closed findings, accepted limitations and open work so that a file transfer is not mistaken for technical acceptance.

PUT THE WORKFLOW IN CONTEXT

Explore the engineering decisions.

Practical reading to help prepare your project discussion. Studies are illustrative; they do not report client results.

Planning scan test without losing the system context ↗

YOUR NEXT CHAPTER STARTS HERE

What will you
build next?

Bring us your engineering challenge.
Let’s define the path from idea to implementation.

Start a conversation