Beware. I had Claude code with opus building boards and using spice simulations. It completely hallucinated the capabilities of the board and made some pretty crazy claims like I had just stumbled onto the secret hardware billion dollar project that every home needed.
None of the boards worked and I had to just do the project in codex. Opus seemed too busy congratulating itself to realize it produced gibberish.
I haven't tried it with codex yet. But my approach is currently a little bit different. I draw the circuit myself, which I am usually faster at than describing the circuit in plain english. And then I give claude the spice netlist as my prompt. The biggest help for me is that I (and Claude) can very quickly verify that my spice model and my hardware are doing the same thing. And for embedded programming, Claude automatically gets feedback from the scope and can correct itself. I do want to try out other models. But it is true, Claude does like to congratulate itself ;)
Oh, I remember seeing Jumperless a while ago, but completely forgot about. Combining this with something like Jumperless does sound interesting. What does your setup look like? Does Claude tell you: "try 1k resistor in parallel here"?
Claude can absolutely correct itself and change the source code on the MCU and adapt. However, it also does make mistakes, such as claiming it matched the simulation when it obviously didn't. Or it might make dubious decisions e.g. bit bang a pin instead of using the dedicated uart subsystem. So, I don't let it build completely by itself.
None of the boards worked and I had to just do the project in codex. Opus seemed too busy congratulating itself to realize it produced gibberish.
Have you found the MCP-driven workflow reliable enough for repeated testing cycles, or does it still need manual verification at key steps?