StanByriukov02's ha-dual-socket tool checks robot mobility on safe vs hostile soil before hardware commitment

StanByriukov02 released ha-dual-socket, an open-source command-line tool that validates a robot's URDF mobility model against two soil types: a safe (firm) and a hostile (soft) surface. The tool uses the Bekker model of sinkage–pressure relationships, common in terramechanics, to calculate whether a given wheeled or tracked robot will sink or get stuck. It is not a Gazebo plugin or ROS package yet—just a minimal Rust binary that takes a URDF file, a soil JSON (defining parameters like cohesion and friction angle), and a wheeled_base flag. The output is a clear PASS or FAIL for each soil, with numeric sinkage values.

In documented examples, an open skid-steer URDF showed 9.5 mm sinkage on safe soil (ALLOW) and 69 mm on hostile soil (REFUSE). That hostile soil sinkage would likely mean immobilization. Even a third-party Fetch Robotics URDF failed the hostile test—and notably also failed the safe test under certain contact conditions, showing that the tool catches hidden design problems. The developer frames the philosophy as "PASS is not the product; truth before hardware is." The tool is available on GitHub under the ha-production-gate repo, with examples and a minimal CLI command: ha-dual-socket --urdf your_robot.urdf --kind wheeled_base --soils your_safe_hostile.json.

The project addresses a common frustration: a robot may appear mobile in firm-ground simulation or on concrete, then fail catastrophically on soft soil (mud, sand, grass) after hardware is already built. By adding a dual-check referee to the URDF validation pipeline, engineers can catch mobility problems early—without waiting for physical testing. The developer welcomes technical pushback and positions this as an open discussion about whether the safe/hostile framing is useful before cutting metal or trusting a firm-soil green.