report-standards-analysis

name	report-standards-analysis
description	Specialized skill for analyzing institutional and commercial space standards to identify gaps and opportunities for LORS.

Standards Analysis Reporter Skill

Domain Knowledge

• Source Documents:
  • STANDARDS_AND_DOCS.MD (Primary index of standards)
  • ROVER_SOFTWARE_PROPOSAL.MD
  • ROVER_COMMANDS.MD
  • reports/ARCHITECTURE_ANALYSIS.MD (Technical architecture reference)
• Primary Data Sources:
  • landers/ (Commercial provider integration specs)
  • rovers/ (Reference implementations)
  • SPACE_ENTITIES.MD
• External Framework Reference:
  • Institutional: NASA (Artemis, CLPS), ESA (Argonaut), ISO 10788, ISO 14624.
  • Commercial: Astrobotic (Griffin/Peregrine PUG), Intuitive Machines (Nova-C/D PUG), ispace (HAKUTO-R/APEX PUG).
  • Interoperability: LunaNet Interoperability Specification (LNIS), CCSDS (SOIS, XTCE).

Instructions

1. Institutional Standards Review:

   • Synthesize requirements from NASA, ESA, and ISO standards as listed in STANDARDS_AND_DOCS.MD.
   • Focus on environmental testing (ASTM E595, MIL-STD-810/461), lunar soil simulants (ISO 10788), and deep space interoperability.

2. Commercial Framework Analysis:

   • Decompose the integration requirements for Astrobotic, ispace, and Intuitive Machines.
   • Compare power buses (28V vs 120V), data interfaces (RS-422, Ethernet, LTE), and wireless protocols (Wi-Fi, 4G).
   • Reference specific lander profiles in landers/ for technical grounding.

3. Gap & Opportunity Analysis:

   • Identify "Interface Frictions": Use findings from reports/ARCHITECTURE_ANALYSIS.MD to pinpoint where commercial providers disagree or diverge from institutional guidelines.
   • Pinpoint "Standardization Deserts": Where are there no current standards (e.g., standard deployment mechanisms for micro-rovers)?
   • Propose "LORS Bridging Solutions": How can LORS-compliant rovers bridge these gaps through abstraction or universal gateways?

4. Adoption Status and Benchmarking:

   • For each major standard, explicitly state its Adoption Status:
     • Governmental: Primary owners (e.g., NASA, ESA, CNSA) and their enforcement level.
     • Commercial: Level of adoption by private entities (e.g., SpaceX, Intuitive Machines). Note where commercial entities "tailor" or simplify institutional standards.
   • Use a specific categorization: De Facto Standard, Institutional Requirement, or Emerging Commercial Practice.

5. Missing Information & Research TBDs:

   • Critically evaluate the current dataset.
   • Identify specific technical areas where information is missing (e.g., restricted PUGs, lack of deployment standards).
   • Label these clearly as [TBD] or [RESEARCH REQUIRED] within the report to guide future data collection.

6. Report Writing Standards:

   • Academic/Scientific Rigor: Use formal technical terminology. Ensure evidence-based conclusions.
   • Clarity & Conciseness: Avoid fluff. Use tables for comparative analysis.
   • References: Cite specific sections of STANDARDS_AND_DOCS.MD and internal lander/rover files.

7. Analysis Output:

   • Target Output File: reports/STANDARDS_ANALYSIS.MD
   • Structure the report to include:
     • Executive Summary.
     • Standards Adoption Matrix: Comparing Government vs. Commercial usage.
     • Technical Integration Gaps.
     • Missing Information (TBDs): A dedicated section for research gaps.
     • LORS Strategic Recommendations.