What to Send for a PCB Design Review

Getting the right files to a reviewer makes the difference between a generic scan and a review that is genuinely useful for your specific design. A reviewer working from a complete submission can check component-level concerns, verify specific operating conditions, and focus attention on the areas you care about. A reviewer working from incomplete files has to make assumptions, and assumptions reduce the depth and accuracy of findings.

This article covers the files to send, the context that makes a review more useful, and what to avoid sending.

The files

Schematic

A PDF export is the minimum required. Every EDA tool can produce a schematic PDF, and a PDF allows a reviewer to zoom in, annotate, and read all component values and net labels clearly. Without a schematic, there is nothing to review.

Native files are significantly better. KiCad .kicad_sch, Altium .SchDoc, Eagle .sch, and EasyEDA JSON files all allow a reviewer to inspect net properties, pin types, component parameters, and simulation models that are not always visible in a PDF export. Native files also allow checking of bus labels, hierarchical sheet connections, and ERC (Electrical Rules Check) results.

If your schematic is multi-sheet, export the complete PDF including all sheets. A reviewer who sees only the top-level sheet cannot review sub-circuits that live on child sheets.

PCB layout

The native layout file is preferred: KiCad .kicad_pcb, Altium .PcbDoc, and equivalent formats for other tools. Native files allow a reviewer to measure trace widths, check clearances, inspect layer stack-up settings, and verify component placement relative to board features and connectors.

Gerbers work for layout checks but limit the depth of analysis. Layer-by-layer Gerber inspection cannot easily check pad-to-via relationships, copper pour connectivity, or 3D clearances. If native files are not possible to share, provide the full Gerber set including drill files and board outline.

Include a 3D view or render if you have one. A 3D view makes it significantly faster to verify component orientation, check for mechanical conflicts, and confirm connector placement relative to enclosure features. Most EDA tools can export a 3D PDF or STEP file. A rendered image also works.

BOM

Excel or CSV format. The manufacturer part number (MPN) is the single most important field in the BOM. Without an MPN, a BOM check is limited to verifying values and package designators against the schematic, the reviewer cannot check the actual component datasheet for correct ratings, operating temperature, RoHS status, or lifecycle status.

A complete BOM row contains:

• Designator: the reference designator as it appears on the schematic (e.g., R1, C4, U2)
• Quantity
• Value: component value with units (e.g., 100 nF, 10 k, 3.3 V LDO)
• Package / footprint: the physical package designation (e.g., 0402, SOT-23-5, QFN-16)
• Manufacturer
• MPN: the full manufacturer part number, not a distributor SKU
• Preferred distributor (optional but useful), Mouser, Digikey, RS, Farnell, etc.

Context that makes the review more useful

What the board does

One paragraph describing the system, what it connects to, what it controls or measures, and what the end product is. Even if the function seems obvious from the schematic, this context helps a reviewer prioritise findings. A motor controller running at 48 V in an industrial setting has very different risk priorities than a 3.3 V sensor board in a consumer product.

Operating conditions

Supply voltage range, operating temperature range, and expected deployment environment. Consumer, industrial, outdoor, automotive, and medical environments each carry different requirements for component ratings, protection levels, and design practices. A reviewer who knows the environment can flag components that are under-rated for the application or point out protection that is missing for the expected operating conditions.

Applicable standards

If your product needs regulatory approval, CE, FCC, UL, IEC 60601 for medical, EN 55032 for emissions, EN 61000 for immunity, say so explicitly at the start of the submission. Regulatory requirements affect component selection (safety-rated capacitors, fuses, creepage distances), EMC design practices, and documentation requirements. A reviewer who does not know the target market may not flag issues that are specifically relevant to the applicable standard.

Specific concerns

If you already suspect a particular area of the design, a power topology you are not sure about, a high-speed interface that is new to you, a thermal situation you think is marginal, flag it explicitly. The reviewer will give those areas additional attention. This is especially useful when you want a deep-dive on one specific subsystem alongside a general review of the rest of the design.

Revision history

If this is a second or third spin of the board, a brief description of what changed from the previous version helps the reviewer focus on the new areas and understand why certain design choices were made. A design that looks unusual may be the result of a deliberate change made to address a failure in the previous spin, knowing that context avoids the reviewer spending time on something that was already investigated.

What not to send

Incomplete designs with TBD values or placeholder components

A review of an unfinished schematic wastes time on areas that will change. If a power supply rail is still marked TBD, or if half the connectors are placeholders, the review cannot be definitive on anything that depends on those open items, which is usually most of the design. Complete the design to the point where you would be comfortable sending it to fabrication, then submit it for review.

BOM without MPNs

A BOM that lists only values and generic package descriptions is useful for counting components but not for a proper BOM review. Without MPNs, a reviewer cannot check actual voltage and current ratings against the design, verify temperature grades, check availability or lifecycle status, or identify multi-sourcing risk. If your BOM is not yet at the MPN stage, note that explicitly so the reviewer understands the scope of what can be checked.

Old file versions

Confirm that you are sending the current revision of every file before you ZIP and send. A mismatch between the schematic revision and the layout revision, where one includes a change that the other does not, is a common source of confusion in reviews. Name files clearly with the revision: ProjectName_schematic_revA.pdf, not schematic_final_FINAL_v2.pdf.

How to package files

ZIP everything into a single archive. Name the archive clearly: ProjectName_revA_review.zip. Inside the ZIP:

• Name each file with the project name and revision: ProjectName_schematic_revA.pdf, ProjectName_BOM_revA.xlsx, ProjectName_layout_revA.kicad_pcb
• If there are multiple boards in the system, a main board and a daughter board, or a controller and a sensor module, name them clearly and include a brief note in your email explaining how they connect and which one you want reviewed
• If there are assembly drawings, 3D exports, or mechanical constraint drawings that are relevant to the review, include them