STIG and other engineering tools
STIG is a code-first, Git-first engineering environment. Its native IntelliJ IDEA model editor and Kotlin editor edit the same source files: use Design, Code, or Split view. Semi-formal specifications live in strongly typed Kotlin; informal content lives in Markdown and text-based Mermaid, PlantUML, and draw.io diagrams. Gradle checks and generated reports connect requirements, architecture, analysis, and tests. Ansys medini analyze and Vector PREEvision address overlapping systems and safety engineering needs through integrated graphical modeling environments. Requirements tools, ALM platforms, and assurance frameworks offer further alternatives or complementary workflows.
Use Why STIG for the product-fit overview. The tables below compare STIG, medini analyze, and PREEvision across authoring, engineering structure, delivery, AI integration, and editing experience, with STIG in the first product column throughout. TRLC appears alongside the other requirements tools further down the page.
Scope and evidence
The medini analyze and PREEvision comparison was checked against the linked vendor documentation on 22 October 2026. Medini behavior follows the 2025 R2.02 user guide, supplemented by the linked license capability matrix and 2026 R1 AI documentation. Vector's current material covers 26.x, including the 26.4 Windows client, requirements web client, and AI technology previews. The additional tools and standards retain the sources reviewed on 12 October 2026. STIG descriptions follow this manual, the implementation in this repository, and the maintainer's product roadmap. These are documented capabilities, not results from a common installation, performance, or usability benchmark. Confirm the selected release, licensed package, and deployment before adopting any tool.
The criteria cover source authoring, graphical modeling, safety methods, traceability, automation, and team governance. They overlap and have different importance for different teams; do not add the icons into an overall score. A graphical safety-analysis workflow can be a better fit even when a tool does not author specifications in Kotlin. Likewise, a source-based workflow can be a better fit when Git review and unattended CI are central.
Legend: ✅ Supported in the described workflow; ⚠️ Conditional or limited, including capabilities that need configuration, an integration, confirmation from the vendor, or a planned release; ❌ Unavailable in the described workflow. Every icon accompanies an explanation. A yellow caution about missing public evidence is not a claim that the product cannot provide the capability.
On the way identifies planned functionality. The native IDEA editor is available now; the browser model editor, HARA, TARA, and FTA are roadmap items. A safety assessment is scheduled for 2027.
The comparison distinguishes a core capability from an editor extension, integration, or project-defined schema. A general-purpose schema can express an engineering method without shipping that method as a built-in metamodel. Private deployment notes and migration scripts do not establish public product capabilities or an organization's tool-selection policy.
STIG and similar engineering tools
STIG supplies the Highway metamodel and CREATE viewpoints: Context, Requirements, dEsign, Analysis, and TEsts. Kotlin model sources, the Gradle plugin, the IntelliJ IDEA plugin, and the optional C/C++ analyzer participate in one engineering workflow.
The GUI writes the same Kotlin model that authors edit as code, so source and graphical edits participate in the same syntax checks, engineering inspections, Git diffs, and reviews. Authors can work entirely in Code, use the native Design editor, or keep both open in Split view. A browser edition of model editing is on the way.
Medini and PREEvision use their own model editors, project representations, and collaboration services. Storing their project files or exports in Git is a different workflow from keeping the editable specification itself as ordinary Kotlin and Markdown sources. File-based storage alone does not establish an equivalent source-editing experience.
Ansys medini analyze combines safety requirements, SysML system models, HARA, FMEA, FTA, and FMEDA. Its user guide documents graphical and tabular authoring, constraints, traceability, reporting, and collaboration. Safety analysis is a substantial supplied capability, not merely a possible project-defined schema.
Vector PREEvision connects requirements, functional and logical architecture, physical hardware and software, and test artifacts in a shared model. Its RFLP viewpoints and E/E engineering data model have their own semantics. Vector documents integrated safety methods and team collaboration, as well as requirements lifecycle and review workflows.
Authoring and execution
Criterion | STIG | Ansys medini analyze | Vector PREEvision |
|---|---|---|---|
Model types and consistency | ✅ Kotlin compiler checks types and symbol references; model rules check engineering relationships. | ✅ Structured engineering models with built-in consistency checks and configurable OCL constraints. | ✅ A supplied engineering data model with automatic and configurable consistency checks. |
Text-based specification authoring | ✅ Semi-formal models in strongly typed | ⚠️ Core authoring uses graphical/tabular project models; OCL constraints and MEL formulas supplement them. Git storage is not the same source-authoring workflow. | ⚠️ Core authoring uses model files or a shared database and its editors; scripting and exports supplement that workflow. |
Graphical architecture authoring | ✅ Native IDEA Design editor and Code/Split views edit the same Kotlin model. Use GUI, code, or both; browser editing is on the way. | ✅ Graphical SysML and table editors for architecture and functions. | ✅ Architecture, software, hardware, network, and wiring diagrams, including SysML-based views. |
Programmable construction and reuse | ✅ Kotlin expressions, functions, libraries, and Gradle modules construct and reuse model content. | ⚠️ Element libraries, OCL constraints, and mathematical expressions; these have different scope from general-purpose model construction. | ✅ Custom metrics can read and write the model; components and model sections can be reused. |
Supplied engineering rules and feedback | ✅ CREATE rule catalog plus IDEA domain inspections and supported quick-fixes. | ✅ Safety consistency rules, configurable constraints, and navigable problem markers. | ✅ Automatic and editable consistency checks, with configurable model validation. |
HARA and safety-goal development | ⚠️ On the way: dedicated HARA and safety-goal workflows are planned. | ✅ HARA, ASIL determination, and safety-goal derivation are supplied. | ✅ Integrated HARA and safety-related architecture development are documented. |
TARA — threat analysis and risk assessment | ⚠️ On the way: dedicated TARA workflows are planned. | ✅ Threat identification, TARA, and attack trees are documented for the cybersecurity feature set. | ⚠️ Confirm the required TARA workflow and licensed scope with Vector; architecture support alone does not establish TARA coverage. |
FTA — fault tree analysis | ⚠️ On the way: dedicated FTA functionality is planned. | ✅ Qualitative and quantitative FTA are supplied, subject to the licensed package. | ✅ Model-based FTA is documented in Vector's safety workflow; confirm the selected package and analysis scope. |
Failure-analysis methods | ⚠️ Models failure propagation, measures, and rationale; this does not establish a quantitative FTA/FMEDA solver. | ✅ FMEA, qualitative and quantitative FTA, and FMEDA; available methods depend on the licensed package. | ✅ Integrated FMEA is documented; confirm the required FTA/FMEDA methods and package for the intended analysis. |
Native C/C++ implementation evidence | ✅ Optional LLVM/PhASAR analysis connects implementation observations to the engineering model and report. | ⚠️ Architecture and safety analysis are documented; an equivalent C/C++ source-analysis pipeline is not established by these sources. | ⚠️ Software architecture and test links are documented; an equivalent C/C++ source-analysis pipeline is not established by these sources. |
STIG's requirements guide, rule catalog, IDE tour, Analysis viewpoint, and current safety scope describe its capabilities and limitations. For medini, see the safety-analysis overview, constraint validation, expression language, and license capability matrix. Medini's cybersecurity documentation describes its threat, attack-tree, and risk-assessment workflow. Vector's January 2026 MBSE presentation, slides 12–13 lists FTA within its integrated safety workflow. For PREEvision, Vector's MBSE overview describes HARA and FMEA; its engineering features describe editable checks, reuse, and metrics with model read/write access.
Links and engineering structure
Criterion | STIG | Ansys medini analyze | Vector PREEvision |
|---|---|---|---|
Links across engineering artifacts | ✅ Typed Kotlin references across files and modules. | ✅ Requirement allocation, SysML relations, and traces between model artifacts. | ✅ Bidirectional links across requirements, architecture, implementation, and test artifacts. |
Navigation and change-impact review | ✅ Declaration navigation, find usages, rename refactoring, and report links support impact review. | ✅ Related-element navigation, trace matrices, and dependency visualization. | ✅ Connected model views and cross-viewpoint change-impact analysis. |
Product lines and variants | ⚠️ Kotlin reuse can construct alternatives; variant governance needs a project-defined process. | ⚠️ FMEDA supports variant metrics; broader product variability uses the pure::variants integration. | ✅ A 150% product-line model supports configuration of individual product variants. |
Generated engineering documentation | ✅ | ✅ Customizable work-product reports, including reports from tables and trace matrices. | ✅ Automated specifications and reports generated from the shared model. |
Supplied decomposition structure | ✅ Highway categories and parent/child relationships span systems down to software elements. | ✅ SysML architecture and function models with safety requirements and analysis allocations. | ✅ RFLP structure and an E/E data model spanning software, hardware, networks, and wiring. |
Connected lifecycle viewpoints | ✅ CREATE defines Context, Requirements, Design, Analysis, and Tests together. | ⚠️ Strong safety requirements, architecture, and analysis integration; confirm the required test-management workflow. | ✅ Requirements, architecture, implementation, and test specifications are linked; these are RFLP semantics, not CREATE. |
Engineering traceability checks | ✅ Rules check derivation, allocation, classification, and verification links. | ✅ Allocation matrices, trace validation, dangling-trace detection, and configurable constraints. | ✅ Cross-viewpoint traceability and configurable consistency checks; select the rules required by the project. |
Exchange with existing engineering tools | ⚠️ Native Highway JSON and SYML Context imports; other connectors need a defined conversion workflow. | ✅ ReqIF and requirements-system integrations; supported systems and licenses depend on release and package. | ✅ ReqIF and Excel requirements exchange plus domain-specific engineering exchange formats. |
See STIG's element and viewpoint tutorial, Tests guide, and import/export workflow. Medini documents requirements allocation, system-model allocation, traceability and integrations in its manual, FMEDA variant support, and pure::variants integration. Vector's requirements engineering guide covers exchange, reporting, and test links; the RFLP walkthrough shows the connected architecture and verification artifacts. Its engineering features also describe product-line and variant management.
Build and adoption
Criterion | STIG | Ansys medini analyze | Vector PREEvision |
|---|---|---|---|
Plain-text Git review and merge | ✅ Kotlin sources use ordinary Git diffs, branches, and code review. | ⚠️ Projects can use Git with medini's external model diff/merge tool; this is not plain-text source review. | ⚠️ Shared-model versioning and reviews are supplied; do not assume the model has ordinary text diffs and merges. |
Unattended command-line CI | ✅ Gradle wrapper tasks check models and generate reports without an interactive IDE. | ⚠️ The documented desktop CLI opens windows for open/diff commands; unattended validation is not established by that interface. | ⚠️ Scripting and an API-server component are documented; confirm unattended checks, licensing, and failure reporting for the selected deployment. |
Incrementality and reproducibility | ✅ Gradle incremental execution, declared inputs, and pinned toolchains/dependencies support reproducible builds; caching remains task-specific. | ⚠️ Model versions and scoped validation do not establish a reproducible build or build-cache contract. | ⚠️ Model versions and baselines do not establish a reproducible build or build-cache contract. |
Linux desktop authoring | ✅ JVM/Gradle model workflows; check supported hosts separately for optional native analysis. | ❌ The cited desktop prerequisites list Windows 10 and 11, not a supported Linux desktop client. | ❌ The 26.4 desktop client requires Windows 11; the requirements web client has a different authoring scope. |
Team collaboration | ✅ Git branches and reviews, shared Kotlin/Gradle modules, and CI support team work using the chosen Git hosting platform. | ✅ Shared server projects, project versions, editing locks, and offline synchronization. | ✅ A shared multi-user model with role-based access and version control. |
Version baselines and review | ✅ Git commit IDs and tags baseline the specification; merge/pull requests and CI provide the review workflow on the chosen Git host. | ✅ Project versions and model compare/merge support baseline and change review; define the project's approval process. | ✅ Model baselines, requirements lifecycles, reviews, and voting are documented. |
Free use of the complete local toolchain | ✅ All STIG features are free: code/IDEA editing, checks, CI, analysis, reports, and bundled skills. Only the optional browser-editing web server is a separate paid offering. | ❌ Production use requires commercial licenses; editions determine available analysis methods and enterprise connectors. | ❌ Production use requires commercial licensing; a free hosted trial is offered separately. |
First working example | ✅ Ready-to-clone | ⚠️ Install and license the desktop tool, then follow its getting-started workflow. | ✅ A vendor-hosted demo model and guided RFLP trial are offered without local installation; access must be requested. |
Tool qualification and certification | ⚠️ Safety assessment scheduled for 2027. Intended scope includes ISO 26262 ASIL D development with TCL3 tool uses and military system safety under MIL-STD-882; qualification and certification outcomes depend on the assessment. | ✅ The safety manual documents ISO 26262 TCL3 and IEC 61508 T2 offline-tool certificates and a qualification kit; apply their version/use-case scope. | ⚠️ ISO 26262 workflow support is documented; a product-specific tool certificate and qualification scope need vendor evidence. |
Follow Install STIG for current JDK and operating-system requirements and build and caching for task behavior. In particular, STIG model-check tasks disable build caching by default because they instantiate current compiled model classes. Neither the presence of Gradle nor a Git-derived version proves that every task is cacheable or every output reproducible.
Medini's desktop prerequisites, CLI and Git merge integration, and collaboration chapters define the described workflow. A CLI that opens a comparison window is not evidence of an unattended CI check. Vector documents team access, requirements reviews and lifecycles, 26.x baselines, the 26.4 client, server, and API-server prerequisites, client download and license requirement, and the hosted trial. Missing public runner details remain a question for evaluation, not a finding that automation is impossible.
All current STIG features are free and open source under MPL-2.0. The planned optional web server for browser-based model editing is a separate paid offering; local code/IDEA authoring and the engineering toolchain remain free. For the scheduled 2027 safety assessment and intended qualification scope, see STIG's assessment plan. Medini's qualification-kit safety manual states its certificate classes. Vector's quality page describes PREEvision's ISO 26262 support; this is distinct from a product-specific tool certificate or a personnel training certificate. ASIL and TCL describe different aspects of a safety process; other qualification standards require their own defined scope.
AI integration
Criterion | STIG | Ansys medini analyze | Vector PREEvision |
|---|---|---|---|
AI-assisted authoring and review | ✅ Version-matched STIG skills let an AI coding agent author and review Kotlin/Markdown specifications, edit the source files, and run model checks and reports. Changes remain ordinary Git changes. | ⚠️ Engineering Copilot is documented for learning and support and requires AnsysGPT AI+; this does not establish equivalent source-editing skills. | ⚠️ PREEvision 26.3 documents AI technology previews, including MCP support; confirm available model operations and preview/deployment conditions. |
Install STIG's bundled skills with ./gradlew stigInstallSkill. The specification skill owns engineering content; project and source-analysis skills cover their respective workflows. Medini's 2026 R1 Copilot release note and Vector's 26.3 release overview document the competing AI features.
UX and editing workflow
Criterion | STIG | Ansys medini analyze | Vector PREEvision |
|---|---|---|---|
Native JetBrains IDEA model editing | ✅ A new 2026 native IDEA UI with keyboard navigation, clipboard operations, Undo/Redo, and the IDE's back/forward navigation. | ❌ A separate modeling environment; it does not provide this native IDEA model-editing workflow. | ❌ An Eclipse-based modeling environment; it does not provide this native IDEA model-editing workflow. |
Code, Design, and Split on the same sources | ✅ Work in Code, Design, or Split view; GUI and code edits share the same Kotlin sources and engineering checks. | ❌ The primary specification is maintained through medini's own model editors rather than paired IDEA/Kotlin editing. | ❌ The primary specification is maintained through PREEvision's own model editors rather than paired IDEA/Kotlin editing. |
These UX rows compare concrete editing workflows. Visual appeal, ease of learning, and speed should be evaluated with the same tasks in each tool. The IDEA tour describes STIG's source feedback and model editor.
What the checks establish
A compiler resolves a Kotlin reference and checks its type. It does not establish that the referenced requirement is the correct parent, that its allocation is consistent, or that its prose expresses the intended obligation. STIG's executable rules check structural and engineering constraints; semantic review still requires engineering intent and evidence. For example, requirement rules check ASIL derivation and allocation consistency and identify missing normative wording. The maintained rule catalog owns the full inventory and severities.
Medini's OCL constraints and PREEvision's consistency checks likewise validate modeled properties. Their graphical authoring does not make their models untyped, and STIG's compilation does not make its engineering conclusions automatically correct. Safety methods also have different purposes: modeling failure propagation, calculating a fault-tree probability, performing HARA, and analyzing C/C++ data flow are distinct activities.
STIG is a strong candidate for teams that want connected specifications as executable source and checks in the software build. Medini is a strong candidate when integrated safety-analysis methods are central. PREEvision is a strong candidate when a shared cross-discipline architecture model and governed collaboration are central. Evaluate the same engineering task and required evidence in each candidate.
Traceability across existing tools
STIG's import and export workflow supports native Highway JSON and SYML Context imports. Conversion from another tool must preserve identities, references, and engineering meaning and must be followed by model checks and review. These import formats do not by themselves establish a direct STIG/TRLC, medini, PREEvision, or ALM connector. Scope any proposed connector against the actual records, links, and evidence that must survive the exchange. Medini's requirements integrations and PREEvision's ReqIF exchange should be tried with representative identities, allocations, custom attributes, and test links rather than treated as lossless conversion of every engineering concept.
LOBSTER is a separate traceability toolset that combines evidence from TRLC, Codebeamer, C++ code, GoogleTest, and other supported inputs. MATLAB and Simulink support uses MISS_HIT. This is an integration advantage to evaluate when those formats already hold the evidence; it is not a feature of the core TRLC grammar alone.
Other tools and standards
The tools below are grouped by purpose. A comparison with a language standard or an assurance framework needs a selected implementation and workflow before installation time, IDE behavior, or caching can be rated.
Requirements and lifecycle management
Tool | Documented capabilities | Evaluation focus alongside STIG |
|---|---|---|
✅ A requirements language with typed | ⚠️ The project defines the engineering metamodel; IDE features, report conversion, and cross-tool traceability use additional components. | |
Commercial ALM with requirements, traceability, risk and test management, workflows, and product variability. | Central collaboration and lifecycle governance; compare concrete workflows, integrations, and deployment costs. | |
Requirements in modules and attributes, with baseline traceability and DXL extensions. | Existing module structures, baselines, and customization. Evaluate the chosen client/server release; DOORS Next is a separate product. | |
Typed documentation items and links in Sphinx, with schema validation for fields and relationships. | Integrating requirements with an existing documentation build. Its current type and constraint support deserves a direct trial. | |
SDoc documents, requirement and source-code traceability, ReqIF exchange, and HTML/PDF export. The quickstart also offers a local web server. | Requirements documentation and interchange without adopting the Highway metamodel. | |
Text files under version control, hierarchical requirement documents, link validation and review, and HTML publishing. Its item format uses YAML. | A compact requirements workflow; evaluate schema needs and review of changed links on a representative document tree. |
TRLC's tutorial, check language, and Bazel guide describe the core workflow. Its editor project supplies VS Code integration and a language server, with a documented JetBrains setup. The core Python package alone does not install those components. Optional --verify checks properties of check expressions; it does not prove that the requirements describe the right system.
Architecture modeling
Tool or standard | Documented capabilities | Evaluation focus alongside STIG |
|---|---|---|
A modeling tool and engineering method spanning operational analysis, system needs, and logical and physical architecture. | Graphical architecture work and method-supported decomposition. Arcadia's perspectives have their own semantics; they are not CREATE viewpoints. | |
A systems-modeling language standard with a pilot implementation for textual notation and visualization. | Standardized systems-modeling semantics and tool interoperability. Select an implementation before comparing editor, deployment, or build features. | |
The project describes its scope as tracking architecture, requirements, and design together. | A candidate for further evaluation; the project description alone does not establish current functionality, maintenance, or readiness. |
Assurance and evidence
Eclipse Trustable Software Framework (TSF) structures an argument about a software release around six tenets: Provenance, Construction, Change, Expectations, Results, and Confidence. It is relevant when collecting and assessing evidence across a development process, including evidence that an engineering tool such as STIG could produce. Its CLI, graph analysis, reporting, and plugins serve that assurance workflow.
Dotstop, within TSF, separates statement content in Markdown files from graph edges in DOT files. Content hashes track statements and links whose review may need to be revisited. Its documentation describes ongoing development; evaluate a selected release for use across repositories. DOT is a graph description language; choosing it does not itself enforce acyclicity or prove a link's meaning.
TSF also documents STPA within RAFIA for risk analysis. This is a distinct method to assess alongside STIG's Analysis viewpoint and implementation analysis, rather than treating all analysis capabilities as interchangeable.
Codethink's TSF page states that exida performed an IEC 61508 functional safety assessment of TSF and offers the report. Any qualification decision must use that report's scope and conditions. The statement does not establish certification of STIG or of a product using either tool; STIG's own status belongs in Safety and cybersecurity compliance.
Try the first example
For STIG, clone the ready-to-use robot example:
Open the report URL printed by Gradle. The robot example is model-only and needs no LLVM/PhASAR provisioning. The smaller project template is also ready to clone. See Example projects, Installation, and Start a STIG project. Add the IDEA plugin to edit through Code, Design, or Split view.
For medini analyze, use the getting-started course and the release-specific user guide. Include a safety requirement, its SysML allocation, a safety analysis, and an exported work product in the trial. Verify that the evaluated license includes the methods and connectors needed.
For PREEvision, request the hosted RFLP trial. Its supplied model connects stakeholder requirements, functions, logical architecture, hardware, software, and test specifications. Evaluate production deployment and automation separately from the hosted demonstration.
For a useful trial, carry the same requirement, decomposition, verification link, and deliberate defect through each candidate workflow. Record the tool versions, installed extensions, cold and cached execution times, diagnostics, review steps, and exported evidence. Check the formats and links that must survive exchange with existing tools. Use those observations with the fit criteria, rather than a total of overlapping feature scores.