Batch Processing SVGs: Inspect a Set Before Integration

A folder of SVGs is easier to review when you can see which files differ before opening each one. This workflow provides a structural report and a contact sheet for an icon set. It helps you find differences in colors, viewBoxes and file contents, then make the visual decisions a script cannot make.

The example uses three complete SVG AI outputs from September 5, 2026: an envelope, a bell and a gear. The local script and contact sheet are manually written. They inspect downloaded files; they do not submit generation jobs, automate the dashboard or consume credits.

Open the three-icon contact sheet to see the result at 24, 32 and 48px before trying the workflow.

Start with a small set and a shared brief

Write down the subjects, intended display size, palette, outline treatment and background. A shared brief gives you a comparison target. It does not lock every generated output to the same geometry or color.

For the retained example, an envelope was generated from text and then used as the reference for a bell and gear. The requested direction was a rounded blue outline, no text or gradients, generous padding and readability at 24px. The matching-set tutorial provides the complete prompts, historical settings and original generation context.

For your own project, use the AI SVG generator when you need a custom direction. Work in manageable groups and retain the generated originals separately from manual finishes. Choose group size from your ability to review the work and the controls and charges currently shown in your account; a local folder workflow does not establish a bulk-generation feature or an unlimited batch size.

A simple local structure is enough:

svg-review/
  inspect_svgs.py
  samples/
    matching-envelope.svg
    matching-bell.svg
    matching-gear.svg

Run the read-only inspection

You need Python 3.10 or later. The script uses its standard library and does not require a package install or a service login.

1. Download inspect_svgs.py into a new folder named svg-review.
2. Make a samples folder inside it.
3. Save the envelope, bell and gear there with those filenames. These are unchanged copies of the retained originals.
4. Open a terminal in svg-review and run:

python inspect_svgs.py samples

If your Python installation uses the python3 command, substitute that command. The script prints JSON to the terminal and leaves the SVGs unchanged. It reads SVG files directly inside the supplied folder, without descending into subfolders.

To keep a report, choose a new filename and redirect the output:

python inspect_svgs.py samples > report.json

Redirection creates or replaces report.json; use a different name to retain an earlier report. The setup notes explain the input limits and exit codes.

Read the result without overinterpreting it

Running the script on the supplied files produces these values:

The complete expected report also shows that all three use 0 0 2048 2048 as their viewBox, have no image elements and contain no explicit stroke attributes.

These observations lead to specific checks:

• Different fills: the blue values differ from each other and from the requested #2563EB. Decide whether exact palette matching is required.
• No stroke attributes: these particular outlines are filled path regions. There is no original stroke width to change as if they were simple stroked lines.
• The same viewBox: the document coordinate areas match, but the drawings can still have different padding and visual weight.
• Different path counts: this describes the markup, not the quality or complexity a person perceives.

The report lists explicit fill and stroke attributes. It does not calculate the final rendered color after CSS, inheritance, gradients, opacity or filters. All three samples return has_css: true because their root SVG has a style="display: block;" attribute; that flag does not necessarily indicate a CSS color override.

Compare the icons where they will be used

Open the contact sheet and inspect the smallest intended size first. Check whether the bell, envelope fold and gear openings remain recognizable, whether one icon appears larger, and whether each icon separates from its background.

The contact sheet uses fixed image boxes of 24, 32 and 48px. It also shows each original at 48px on navy. Those boxes make the comparison repeatable; they do not make the internal shapes occupy equal space.

Review the files in the actual interface too. An icon placed next to text may be decorative, while an icon-only control needs an accessible name supplied by the control. The W3C image decision tree helps distinguish informative, functional and decorative images according to their use.

Finish deliberately, then run the report again

If an icon's shape works and its only defect is a known paint value, make a separate manual version with the intended value. If the silhouette or spacing fails at the target size, it may need a geometry change or a different design. Renaming files or rerunning an inspection does not solve either problem.

For this set, the existing manual finishes and size comparison set the same #2563EB fill and add a 24-unit stroke while retaining the original path coordinates. They are manually prepared variants, not new generated results. Compare them at your own target size before adopting that treatment.

Keep originals and finished files in separate folders. Run the script on the finished folder and compare reports so an unexpected paint or viewBox change is easier to spot. Then repeat the visual and interface review; a clean structural report is not an acceptance decision.

Know the inspection boundary

The script accepts UTF-8 SVGs in the SVG namespace, limits each input to 5 MiB and refuses DTD or entity declarations. It reports malformed XML per file and continues to the other files. A file error returns exit code 1; an invalid or empty folder returns exit code 2.

It is not a sanitizer or an accessibility, licensing or security checker. A file with no image elements can still contain unwanted behavior or unsuitable artwork. Apply your normal review process to untrusted files before opening or embedding them. The sample script's source is short enough to inspect before running it.

For a larger project, record whether each deliverable was accepted, revised or rejected, along with the review and finishing time. Use the cost-per-accepted-asset worksheet if you want to compare workflows. Three retained icons can demonstrate file inspection; they cannot establish a percentage time saving or success rate for a large library.