InspectMind AI reviews your engineering drawings and calculations for code compliance gaps and cross-discipline coordination conflicts before you submit. Get a sheet-referenced issue list in hours so you can fix problems on your schedule, not the AHJ's.
Trusted by structural, civil, and MEP engineers
A structural penetration that conflicts with an architectural ceiling height, a mechanical duct route that has no coordinated path, a plumbing chase missing from the structural framing plan. These issues originate in the drawing set and the plan checker finds them if your team does not find them first. Each correction cycle adds weeks to the permit timeline and creates rework that traces directly to the design phase. Cross-discipline coordination gaps are among the most consistent sources of requests for information (RFIs) and resubmission comments. They are also among the most findable before submittal, when the drawings are still on your desk.
Code compliance requirements differ by discipline and shift by jurisdiction and adopted code edition. Verifying every applicable section by hand, across a complete drawing set, against a submission deadline, rarely happens completely. The sections that get missed are the ones that come back as plan check comments. The building codes checker runs against the specific adopted code edition and jurisdiction you are submitting to, covering the full set rather than the sections your team had time to check.
A resubmission cycle at most jurisdictions takes two to four weeks. That delay pushes construction starts, strains contractor schedules, and signals to the owner that the documents were not ready. An engineer who runs the same check the plan examiner will run, before submitting, keeps the project moving instead of waiting on a correction letter.
Upload your engineering drawings and calculations, confirm the applicable codes and jurisdiction, and get a sheet-referenced issue list before you submit. InspectMind reviews the full document set against defined code criteria and internal coordination standards, returning findings tied to specific sheets and code sections in hours. Manual review finds what the reviewer knows to look for and has time to check. InspectMind runs the same criteria across every sheet, every time, without the constraints of a deadline or a single reviewer's field of attention.
The structural checker reviews structural drawings and calculations for coordination with architectural and other discipline drawings, as well as code compliance issues specific to your submission. Findings are tied to specific sheet references and applicable code sections so your team can locate each issue directly without searching through the full set.
The mechanical checker and electrical checker catch MEP coordination conflicts and cross-discipline mismatches against the architectural drawings. Duct routes, equipment clearances, electrical panel locations, and service entries are checked against what the architectural set actually shows, not what the MEP drawings assume.
The building codes checker checks your drawings against the specific adopted code edition and jurisdiction you are submitting to. If your jurisdiction is on IBC 2021 with local amendments, the review runs against that edition. Findings identify the specific code section triggered and the drawing sheet where the issue appears.
Run your drawings and calculations through InspectMind before your next submittal and see what the plan checker would have found. From $50 per upload, no per-user fees, 5+ issues or full refund.
Upload your engineers drawings. Eligible work emails get a first $100 covered ($100 credit). Results in hours.
“InspectMind catches a lot of coordination items and the analysis is very thorough and helpful. I will definitely continue to use it during the different phases of the design. It will keep us updated with code issues and help eliminate change orders and RFIs during construction.”
These reviews were run on real project documents by teams that wanted to know what was in their sets before the AHJ did.
InspectMind reviewed the Cold Summit Development project documents and surfaced material specification conflicts and drawing-to-spec mismatches that would have caused field problems if they had reached construction. Aaron Bass, Director of Construction, noted: "InspectMind helped us catch real meaningful issues. It immediately caught real issues like wood vs HDPE blocking conflicts and specs vs drawings mismatches." Finding those issues before submittal kept them off the correction letter.
Read the case studyInspectMind reviewed a healthcare facility's structural and multi-discipline drawing set and returned 417 issues before the set went to the AHJ. Healthcare projects carry dense code requirements and high coordination complexity across structural, MEP, and architectural disciplines. Surfacing 417 issues internally gave the design team the opportunity to resolve them before any reached a plan examiner.
Read the case studyInspectMind reviewed a K-12 school document set and identified 375 issues across what is typically one of the more engineering-intensive project types in public construction. Large school projects carry structural, civil, and MEP complexity across many drawing sheets, and cross-discipline coordination gaps accumulate at scale. Finding 375 issues before submission meant the design team resolved them on their own timeline rather than through a correction cycle.
Read the case studyEach review runs on the same engine and returns findings cited to the sheet and code section.
Structural Checker
Mechanical and Electrical Checkers
Mechanical and Electrical Checkers
Building Codes Checker
Drawing sets are sensitive. We treat them that way, with clear commitments on training, retention, and access.
We don’t train public AI or third-party models on your documents, and you can opt out of our own model improvement anytime.
Request deletion of any project, any time. NDAs are available for sensitive work.
Files live in secure cloud infrastructure with customer segregation.
Straight answers before your first check.
