arckit-service-assessment

name	arckit-service-assessment
description	Prepare for GDS Service Standard assessment - analyze evidence against 14 points, identify gaps, generate readiness report

GDS Service Assessment Preparation

You are an expert UK Government service assessor helping teams prepare for GDS Service Standard assessments.

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

Command Purpose

Generate a comprehensive GDS Service Standard assessment preparation report that:

1. Analyzes existing ArcKit artifacts as evidence for the 14-point Service Standard
2. Identifies evidence gaps for the specified assessment phase (alpha/beta/live)
3. Provides RAG (Red/Amber/Green) ratings for each point and overall readiness
4. Generates actionable recommendations with priorities and timelines
5. Includes assessment day preparation guidance

Arguments

PHASE (required): alpha, beta, or live - The assessment phase to prepare for DATE (optional): YYYY-MM-DD - Planned assessment date for timeline calculations

The 14-Point Service Standard

Section 1: Meeting Users' Needs

1. Understand users and their needs - Understand your users and their needs through research
2. Solve a whole problem for users - Work towards creating a service that solves a whole problem
3. Provide a joined up experience across all channels - Create a joined up experience across channels
4. Make the service simple to use - Build a service that's simple so people can succeed first time
5. Make sure everyone can use the service - Ensure accessibility including disabled people

Section 2: Providing a Good Service

6. Have a multidisciplinary team - Put in place a sustainable multidisciplinary team
7. Use agile ways of working - Create the service using agile, iterative ways of working
8. Iterate and improve frequently - Have capacity and flexibility to iterate frequently
9. Create a secure service which protects users' privacy - Ensure security and privacy protection
10. Define what success looks like and publish performance data - Use metrics to inform decisions

Section 3: Using the Right Technology

11. Choose the right tools and technology - Choose tools that enable efficient service delivery
12. Make new source code open - Make source code open and reusable under appropriate licences
13. Use and contribute to open standards, common components and patterns - Build on open standards
14. Operate a reliable service - Minimise downtime and have incident response plans

Process

Note: Before generating, scan projects/ for existing project directories. For each project, list all ARC-*.md artifacts, check external/ for reference documents, and check 000-global/ for cross-project policies. If no external docs exist but they would improve output, ask the user.

Read the template (with user override support):

• First, check if .arckit/templates-custom/service-assessment-prep-template.md exists in the project root
• If found: Read the user's customized template (user override takes precedence)
• If not found: Read .arckit/templates/service-assessment-prep-template.md (default)
• Then read .arckit/templates/_partials/RENDERING.md and resolve the <!-- DOC-CONTROL-HEADER --> marker in the template before writing. Do not hand-write the Document Control table: the partial RENDERING.md selects is the only source of the 14 standard fields and of the classification ladder.

Tip: Users can customize templates with $arckit-customize service-assessment

Step 1: Identify the target project

• Use the ArcKit Project Context (above) to find the project matching the user's input (by name or number)
• If no match, create a new project:
  1. Use Glob to list projects/*/ directories and find the highest NNN-* number (or start at 001 if none exist)
  2. Calculate the next number (zero-padded to 3 digits, e.g., 002)
  3. Slugify the project name (lowercase, replace non-alphanumeric with hyphens, trim)
  4. Use the Write tool to create projects/{NNN}-{slug}/README.md with the project name, ID, and date — the Write tool will create all parent directories automatically
  5. Also create projects/{NNN}-{slug}/external/README.md with a note to place external reference documents here
  6. Set PROJECT_ID = the 3-digit number, PROJECT_PATH = the new directory path

Step 2: Read existing artifacts from the project context

MANDATORY (warn if missing):

• PRIN (Architecture Principles, in projects/000-global/)
  • Extract: Technology standards, compliance requirements, governance constraints
  • If missing: warn user to run $arckit-principles first
• REQ (Requirements) in projects/{project-dir}/
  • Extract: User stories, acceptance criteria, NFRs, accessibility requirements
  • If missing: warn user to run $arckit-requirements first

RECOMMENDED (read if available, note if missing):

• STKE (Stakeholder Analysis) — user needs, personas, RACI
• RISK (Risk Register) — security risks, mitigation strategies
• PLAN (Project Plan) — phases, timeline, team structure
• SOBC (Business Case) — benefits, success metrics
• DATA (Data Model) — GDPR compliance, data governance
• DIAG (Architecture Diagrams) — C4, deployment
• DEVOPS (DevOps Strategy) — deployment, monitoring
• SECD (Secure by Design) — security assessment
• DPIA (DPIA) — privacy protection evidence
• HLDR / DLDR (Design Reviews) — high-level and detailed design reviews
• TRAC (Traceability Matrix)

OPTIONAL (read if available, skip silently if missing):

• TCOP (TCoP Assessment) — technology compliance
• AIPB (AI Playbook) — if AI components
• ATRS (ATRS record) — if algorithmic tools
• SOW (Statement of Work)
• EVAL (Evaluation Criteria)
• ANAL (Governance Analysis)
• WARD (Wardley Map) — strategic analysis
• RSCH / AWSR / AZUR — technology research

Step 2b: Read external documents and policies

• Read any external documents listed in the project context (external/ files) — extract previous assessment results, assessor feedback, action items, evidence gaps identified
• Read any enterprise standards in projects/000-global/external/ — extract enterprise service standards, previous GDS assessment reports, cross-project assessment benchmarks
• If no external docs exist but they would improve preparation, ask: "Do you have any previous GDS assessment reports or assessor feedback? I can read PDFs directly. Place them in projects/{project-dir}/external/ and re-run, or skip."
• Citation traceability: When referencing content from external documents, follow the citation instructions in .arckit/references/citation-instructions.md. Place inline citation markers (e.g., [PP-C1]) next to findings informed by source documents and populate the "External References" section in the template.

Step 3: Map Evidence to Service Standard Points

For each of the 14 Service Standard points, map evidence from ArcKit artifacts:

Point 1: Understand Users and Their Needs

Evidence Sources:

• ARC-*-STKE-*.md - User groups, needs, pain points, drivers
• ARC-*-REQ-*.md - User stories, personas, user journeys, acceptance criteria
• ARC-*-PLAN-*.md - User research activities planned/completed
• reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md - User needs validation, usability considerations

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ User needs documented from research
• ✅ User groups and personas identified
• ✅ Prototype testing results with real users (critical)
• ✅ Evidence of research with diverse user groups
• ⚠️ Analytics data (optional for alpha)

Beta:

• ✅ Ongoing user research throughout beta
• ✅ Testing with diverse users including assistive technology users
• ✅ User research informing iterations
• ✅ Analytics data showing user behavior
• ✅ Evidence of continuous user engagement

Live:

• ✅ User satisfaction metrics being collected and published
• ✅ Continuous user research program
• ✅ User feedback informing service improvements
• ✅ Evidence of user needs evolving over time
• ✅ Analytics showing successful user outcomes

Point 2: Solve a Whole Problem for Users

Evidence Sources:

• ARC-*-REQ-*.md - End-to-end user journeys, functional requirements
• ARC-*-STKE-*.md - User goals, desired outcomes
• wardley-maps/ARC-*-WARD-*.md - Value chain, user needs to components mapping
• diagrams/ARC-*-DIAG-*.md - Service boundaries, external systems
• reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md - Integration strategy, channel coverage

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ User journey maps showing end-to-end experience
• ✅ Problem definition beyond government touchpoints
• ✅ Understanding of user context before/after service interaction
• ✅ Identification of pain points in current experience

Beta:

• ✅ Service covers complete user journey
• ✅ Integration with other services/channels
• ✅ Assisted digital support for those who need it
• ✅ Clear service boundaries with rationale

Live:

• ✅ User completion rates demonstrating whole problem solved
• ✅ Monitoring of user drop-off points
• ✅ Evidence of service iterations based on completion data
• ✅ Cross-channel experience working seamlessly

Point 3: Provide a Joined Up Experience Across All Channels

Evidence Sources:

• ARC-*-REQ-*.md - Multi-channel requirements, integration points
• reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md - Channel strategy, integration architecture
• diagrams/ - System integration diagrams
• ARC-*-DATA-*.md - Data consistency across channels

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ Channels identified and mapped
• ✅ Integration strategy defined
• ✅ Consistent branding and messaging planned
• ✅ Understanding of user channel preferences

Beta:

• ✅ All channels implemented and working
• ✅ Data synchronized across channels
• ✅ Consistent user experience across channels
• ✅ Channel switching works seamlessly
• ✅ Testing completed across all channels

Live:

• ✅ Channel usage monitored and optimized
• ✅ User satisfaction high across all channels
• ✅ Continuous improvement of channel experience
• ✅ Evidence of users successfully switching channels

Point 4: Make the Service Simple to Use

Evidence Sources:

• ARC-*-REQ-*.md - Usability requirements, simplicity NFRs
• reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md - UX design review, simplicity assessment
• ARC-*-PLAN-*.md - Usability testing activities

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ Prototype usability testing conducted
• ✅ Design iterations based on user feedback
• ✅ Simple language and clear instructions
• ✅ Task completion rates in testing

Beta:

• ✅ Usability testing with diverse users
• ✅ Task completion >85% on first attempt
• ✅ Content design reviewed by GDS content designers
• ✅ Plain language, no jargon
• ✅ Forms and interactions simplified

Live:

• ✅ Task completion rates >90%
• ✅ User satisfaction scores high
• ✅ Low support ticket volume for "how to use"
• ✅ Continuous simplification based on user feedback

Point 5: Make Sure Everyone Can Use the Service

Evidence Sources:

• ARC-*-REQ-*.md - WCAG 2.2 AA requirements, accessibility NFRs
• ARC-*-SECD-*.md - Accessibility considerations
• reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md - Accessibility design review
• reviews/ARC-*-DLDR-*.md - Assistive technology compatibility

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ Accessibility considerations documented
• ✅ WCAG 2.2 AA compliance planned
• ✅ Testing with assistive technology planned
• ⚠️ Full accessibility audit not required at alpha

Beta:

• ✅ WCAG 2.2 AA audit completed and passed (critical)
• ✅ Testing with screen readers, voice control, magnification
• ✅ Testing with disabled users
• ✅ Accessibility statement published
• ✅ Alternative formats available

Live:

• ✅ Zero accessibility complaints/barriers
• ✅ Regular accessibility audits
• ✅ Continuous accessibility testing in development
• ✅ User research includes disabled users
• ✅ Accessibility champion in team

Point 6: Have a Multidisciplinary Team

Evidence Sources:

• ARC-*-STKE-*.md - RACI matrix, team roles
• ARC-*-PLAN-*.md - Team structure, roles, skills
• ARC-*-SOBC-*.md - Team costs, sustainability plan

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ Team composition documented
• ✅ Key roles filled: Product Manager, User Researcher, Tech Lead, Designer, Delivery Manager
• ✅ Skills audit showing capability coverage
• ✅ Team co-located or good remote working practices

Beta:

• ✅ Team stable and sustainable
• ✅ All required skills represented
• ✅ Specialists available (accessibility, security, content, etc.)
• ✅ Team has autonomy to make decisions
• ✅ Career development for team members

Live:

• ✅ Team retention high
• ✅ Knowledge sharing and documentation
• ✅ Continuous learning culture
• ✅ Team satisfaction high
• ✅ Succession planning in place

Point 7: Use Agile Ways of Working

Evidence Sources:

• ARC-*-PLAN-*.md - GDS phases, sprint structure, agile ceremonies
• ARC-*-RISK-*.md - Iterative risk management
• reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md, reviews/ARC-*-DLDR-*.md - Design iterations

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ Agile ceremonies established (standups, retros, planning)
• ✅ Sprint cadence defined (typically 1-2 weeks)
• ✅ User stories and backlog maintained
• ✅ Iterative approach to prototyping

Beta:

• ✅ Mature agile practices
• ✅ Regular releases to production
• ✅ Retrospectives leading to improvements
• ✅ Team velocity tracked
• ✅ Continuous improvement culture

Live:

• ✅ Continuous deployment pipeline
• ✅ Regular feature releases based on user feedback
• ✅ DevOps maturity high
• ✅ Team adapting practices based on learning

Point 8: Iterate and Improve Frequently

Evidence Sources:

• reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md, reviews/ARC-*-DLDR-*.md - Design iterations, review dates
• ARC-*-ANAL-*.md - Governance improvements over time
• ARC-*-PLAN-*.md - Iteration cycles, review gates
• ARC-*-REQ-*.md - Requirements evolution

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ Prototype iterations documented
• ✅ Changes based on user feedback
• ✅ Multiple design options explored
• ✅ Learning log showing insights and pivots

Beta:

• ✅ Service iterations in production
• ✅ A/B testing or controlled rollouts
• ✅ Feature flags for experimentation
• ✅ Monitoring and feedback loops
• ✅ Regular releases (at least monthly)

Live:

• ✅ Continuous improvement demonstrated
• ✅ User feedback directly informing roadmap
• ✅ Metrics showing service improvements
• ✅ Innovation and experimentation ongoing

Point 9: Create a Secure Service Which Protects Users' Privacy

Evidence Sources:

• ARC-*-SECD-*.md - NCSC security principles, threat model
• ARC-*-DATA-*.md - GDPR compliance, data protection, PII handling
• ARC-*-ATRS-*.md - AI transparency and risk (if AI service)
• ARC-*-RISK-*.md - Security risks and mitigations
• ARC-*-REQ-*.md - Security and privacy NFRs
• ARC-*-TCOP-*.md - TCoP security points

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ Threat model created
• ✅ Security risks identified and assessed
• ✅ GDPR compliance approach defined
• ✅ Data protection impact assessment (if needed)
• ✅ Privacy considerations documented

Beta:

• ✅ Security testing completed (pen test, vulnerability scanning)
• ✅ GDPR compliance implemented
• ✅ Privacy policy published
• ✅ Data retention policies defined
• ✅ Security monitoring in place
• ✅ Incident response plan documented

Live:

• ✅ Zero security breaches
• ✅ Regular security testing and audits
• ✅ Security monitoring and alerting
• ✅ Privacy complaints = 0
• ✅ Cyber Essentials Plus certification (or higher)

Point 10: Define What Success Looks Like and Publish Performance Data

Evidence Sources:

• ARC-*-REQ-*.md - KPIs, success metrics, NFRs
• ARC-*-SOBC-*.md - Benefits realization, success criteria, ROI
• ARC-*-PLAN-*.md - Milestones, success criteria per phase
• ARC-*-TCOP-*.md - Performance metrics approach

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ Success metrics defined (user satisfaction, completion rates, cost per transaction)
• ✅ Baseline measurements identified
• ✅ Data collection approach planned
• ✅ KPIs aligned to user needs

Beta:

• ✅ Performance data being collected
• ✅ Dashboard showing key metrics
• ✅ Performance data published (at least internally)
• ✅ Metrics reviewed regularly by team
• ✅ Targets set for live service

Live:

• ✅ Performance data published on GOV.UK (critical)
• ✅ 4 mandatory KPIs published: cost per transaction, user satisfaction, completion rate, digital take-up
• ✅ Data updated regularly (at least quarterly)
• ✅ Performance trends showing improvement
• ✅ Metrics informing service improvements

Point 11: Choose the Right Tools and Technology

Evidence Sources:

• research/ - Technology research, proof of concepts
• wardley-maps/ - Build vs buy analysis, technology evolution
• ARC-*-TCOP-*.md - Technology choices justified (TCoP Point 11)
• reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md - Technology stack, architecture decisions
• ARC-*-SOW-*.md - Vendor selection, procurement justification
• ARC-*-EVAL-*.md - Technology/vendor scoring

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ Technology options explored
• ✅ Build vs buy analysis completed
• ✅ Technology spikes/proof of concepts conducted
• ✅ Technology choices justified against requirements
• ✅ Cost analysis for technology options

Beta:

• ✅ Technology choices working in production
• ✅ Technology scalable and fit for purpose
• ✅ Total cost of ownership understood
• ✅ Technology risks managed
• ✅ Team has skills for chosen technology

Live:

• ✅ Technology performing well at scale
• ✅ Technology costs optimized
• ✅ Technology debt managed
• ✅ Regular technology reviews
• ✅ Technology enabling rapid iteration

Point 12: Make New Source Code Open

Evidence Sources:

• reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md - Open source approach, repository links
• ARC-*-TCOP-*.md - TCoP Point 12 (Open source code)
• ARC-*-REQ-*.md - Open source licensing requirements

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ Open source approach decided
• ✅ Security and IP considerations addressed
• ✅ Code repository approach defined
• ⚠️ Code may not be public yet at alpha

Beta:

• ✅ Source code repository exists (GitHub/GitLab)
• ✅ Code published under appropriate license (MIT, Apache 2.0, etc.)
• ✅ Secrets and credentials not in source code
• ✅ README and documentation for developers
• ✅ Contribution guidelines if accepting contributions

Live:

• ✅ All new code public and open source
• ✅ Active repository with regular commits
• ✅ External contributions welcomed
• ✅ Code quality maintained
• ✅ Open source community engagement

Point 13: Use and Contribute to Open Standards, Common Components and Patterns

Evidence Sources:

• ARC-*-TCOP-*.md - TCoP Point 13 (Open standards)
• reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md - GOV.UK Design System usage, API standards, common components
• ARC-*-REQ-*.md - Standards compliance requirements
• ARC-*-DATA-*.md - Data standards

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ GOV.UK Design System usage planned
• ✅ Common components identified (GOV.UK Notify, Pay, etc.)
• ✅ API standards considered (RESTful, OpenAPI)
• ✅ Data standards identified (if applicable)

Beta:

• ✅ GOV.UK Design System implemented
• ✅ Common components integrated (Notify, Pay, Verify, etc.)
• ✅ APIs follow government API standards
• ✅ Open standards used for data formats
• ✅ Contributing patterns back to community (if novel)

Live:

• ✅ Consistent use of GOV.UK patterns
• ✅ Common components working in production
• ✅ Contributing to open standards development
• ✅ Sharing patterns with other teams
• ✅ Standards compliance maintained

Point 14: Operate a Reliable Service

Evidence Sources:

• ARC-*-REQ-*.md - Availability/reliability NFRs, SLAs
• reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md - Resilience architecture, failover, disaster recovery
• reviews/ARC-*-DLDR-*.md - Infrastructure resilience, monitoring
• ARC-*-RISK-*.md - Operational risks, incident response

Phase-Specific Evidence Requirements:

Alpha:

• ✅ Reliability requirements defined
• ✅ Uptime targets set
• ✅ High-level resilience approach planned
• ⚠️ Full operational procedures not needed at alpha

Beta:

• ✅ Service uptime meeting targets (typically 99.9%)
• ✅ Monitoring and alerting in place
• ✅ Incident response procedures documented
• ✅ On-call rota established
• ✅ Disaster recovery plan tested
• ✅ Load testing completed

Live:

• ✅ SLA consistently met (99.9%+ uptime)
• ✅ Incident response tested and working
• ✅ Post-incident reviews conducted
• ✅ Proactive monitoring preventing issues
• ✅ Capacity planning and scaling working
• ✅ Chaos engineering or resilience testing

Step 4: Phase-Appropriate Gap Analysis

Apply phase-appropriate criteria when assessing evidence:

Alpha Assessment - Focus on demonstrating viability:

• Lower bar for operational evidence (monitoring, performance data)
• Higher bar for user research and prototyping
• Critical: User testing, team composition, technology viability
• Optional: Full accessibility audit, published performance data

Beta Assessment - Focus on demonstrating production readiness:

• Higher bar for everything
• Critical: Working service, security testing, accessibility compliance, performance monitoring
• All 14 points must be addressed substantively
• Evidence of service working end-to-end

Live Assessment - Focus on demonstrating continuous improvement:

• Highest bar, operational excellence expected
• Critical: Published performance data, user satisfaction, continuous improvement
• Evidence of service evolution based on user feedback
• Operational maturity demonstrated

Step 5: Generate RAG Ratings

For each Service Standard point, assign a RAG rating based on evidence found:

🟢 Green (Ready):

• All critical evidence found for this phase
• Evidence is comprehensive and high quality
• No significant gaps
• Team ready to discuss this point confidently

🟡 Amber (Partial):

• Some evidence found but gaps remain
• Evidence exists but may lack detail or breadth
• Minor gaps that can be addressed quickly (1-2 weeks)
• Would likely receive "Amber" rating from assessment panel

🔴 Red (Not Ready):

• Critical evidence missing
• Significant gaps that require substantial work (3+ weeks)
• Would likely receive "Red" rating and fail this point
• Must be addressed before booking assessment

Overall Readiness Rating:

• 🟢 Green (Ready): 12+ points Green, max 2 Amber, 0 Red
• 🟡 Amber (Nearly Ready): 10+ points Green/Amber, max 2 Red
• 🔴 Red (Not Ready): More than 2 Red points or fewer than 10 Green/Amber

Step 6: Generate Recommendations

For each gap identified, generate specific, actionable recommendations:

Priority Levels:

• Critical: Must complete before assessment (affects Red rating)
• High: Should complete before assessment (affects Amber rating)
• Medium: Nice to have, strengthens case (improves confidence)

Recommendation Format:

Priority: [Critical/High/Medium]
Point: [Service Standard point number]
Action: [Specific action to take]
Timeline: [Estimated time to complete]
Who: [Suggested role/person]
Evidence to create: [What artifact/documentation will this produce]

Step 7: Generate Assessment Day Guidance

Provide practical guidance for the assessment day:

Documentation to Prepare (share with panel 1 week before):

• List specific ArcKit artifacts to share
• Suggest additional materials needed (prototypes, demos, research findings)
• Recommend format for sharing (links, documents, slide deck limits)

Who Should Attend:

• Core team members required (Product Manager, User Researcher, Tech Lead, Delivery Manager)
• Phase-specific additions (e.g., Accessibility specialist for beta)
• Suggested role assignments during assessment

Show and Tell Structure (4-hour assessment timeline):

• 0:00-0:15: Introductions and context
• 0:15-1:00: User research and needs
• 1:00-1:45: Service demo/prototype walkthrough
• 1:45-2:30: Technical architecture and security
• 2:30-3:00: Team and ways of working
• 3:00-3:45: Q&A on Service Standard points
• 3:45-4:00: Panel deliberation

Tips for Assessment Day:

• Show real work, not polished presentations
• Have doers present their work
• Be honest about unknowns
• Explain problem-solving approach
• Demonstrate user-centered thinking
• Show iteration and learning

Before writing the file, read .arckit/references/quality-checklist.md and verify all Common Checks plus the SVCASS per-type checks pass. Fix any failures before proceeding.

Step 8: Write Assessment Preparation Report

Generate a comprehensive markdown report saved to:

projects/{project-dir}/ARC-{PROJECT_ID}-SVCASS-v1.0.md

Example: projects/001-nhs-appointment/ARC-001-SVCASS-v1.0.md

Report Structure

# GDS Service Assessment Preparation Report

**Project**: [Project Name from ArcKit artifacts]
**Assessment Phase**: [Alpha/Beta/Live]
**Assessment Date**: [If provided, else "Not yet scheduled"]
**Report Generated**: [Current date]
**ArcKit Version**: {ARCKIT_VERSION}

---

## Executive Summary

**Overall Readiness**: 🟢 Green / 🟡 Amber / 🔴 Red

**Readiness Score**: X/14 points ready

**Breakdown**:
- 🟢 Green: X points
- 🟡 Amber: X points
- 🔴 Red: X points

**Summary**:
[2-3 paragraph summary of overall readiness, highlighting strengths and critical gaps]

**Critical Gaps** (Must address before assessment):
- [Gap 1 with Service Standard point number]
- [Gap 2 with Service Standard point number]
- [Gap 3 with Service Standard point number]

**Key Strengths**:
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]
- [Strength 3]

**Recommended Timeline**:
- [X weeks/days until ready based on gap analysis]
- [If assessment date provided: "Assessment in X days - [Ready/Need to postpone]"]

---

## Service Standard Assessment (14 Points)

[For each of the 14 points, include the following detailed section]

### 1. Understand Users and Their Needs

**Status**: 🟢 Ready / 🟡 Partial / 🔴 Not Ready

**What This Point Means**:
[Brief 2-3 sentence explanation of what this Service Standard point requires]

**Why It Matters**:
[1-2 sentences on importance]

**Evidence Required for [Alpha/Beta/Live]**:
- [Evidence requirement 1 for this phase]
- [Evidence requirement 2 for this phase]
- [Evidence requirement 3 for this phase]

**Evidence Found in ArcKit Artifacts**:

✅ **ARC-*-STKE-*.md** (lines XX-YY)
   - [Specific evidence found]
   - [What this demonstrates]

✅ **ARC-*-REQ-*.md** (Section X: User Stories)
   - [Specific evidence found]
   - [What this demonstrates]

❌ **Missing**: [Specific gap 1]
❌ **Missing**: [Specific gap 2]
⚠️ **Weak**: [Evidence exists but lacks quality/detail]

**Gap Analysis**:
[2-3 sentences assessing completeness: what's strong, what's weak, what's missing]

**Readiness Rating**: 🟢 Green / 🟡 Amber / 🔴 Red

**Strengths**:
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]

**Weaknesses**:
- [Weakness 1]
- [Weakness 2]

**Recommendations**:

1. **Critical**: [Action with specific details]
   - Timeline: [X days/weeks]
   - Owner: [Suggested role]
   - Evidence to create: [What this will produce]

2. **High**: [Action with specific details]
   - Timeline: [X days/weeks]
   - Owner: [Suggested role]
   - Evidence to create: [What this will produce]

3. **Medium**: [Action with specific details]
   - Timeline: [X days/weeks]
   - Owner: [Suggested role]
   - Evidence to create: [What this will produce]

**Assessment Day Guidance**:
- **Prepare**: [What to prepare for presenting this point]
- **Show**: [What to demonstrate/show]
- **Bring**: [Who should be ready to present]
- **Materials**: [Specific artifacts/demos to have ready]
- **Likely Questions**:
  - [Expected question 1]
  - [Expected question 2]

---

[Repeat above structure for all 14 Service Standard points]

---

## Evidence Inventory

**Complete Traceability**: Service Standard Point → ArcKit Artifacts

| Service Standard Point | ArcKit Artifacts | Status | Critical Gaps |
|------------------------|------------------|--------|---------------|
| 1. Understand users | ARC-*-STKE-*.md, ARC-*-REQ-*.md | 🟡 Partial | Prototype testing with users |
| 2. Solve whole problem | ARC-*-REQ-*.md, wardley-maps/ | 🟢 Complete | None |
| 3. Joined up experience | reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md, diagrams/ | 🟡 Partial | Channel integration testing |
| 4. Simple to use | ARC-*-REQ-*.md, reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md | 🟢 Complete | None |
| 5. Everyone can use | ARC-*-REQ-*.md, ARC-*-SECD-*.md | 🔴 Not Ready | WCAG 2.2 AA testing |
| 6. Multidisciplinary team | ARC-*-STKE-*.md, ARC-*-PLAN-*.md | 🟢 Complete | None |
| 7. Agile ways of working | ARC-*-PLAN-*.md | 🟢 Complete | None |
| 8. Iterate frequently | reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md, reviews/ARC-*-DLDR-*.md | 🟡 Partial | Iteration log |
| 9. Secure and private | ARC-*-SECD-*.md, ARC-*-DATA-*.md | 🟢 Complete | None |
| 10. Success metrics | ARC-*-REQ-*.md, ARC-*-SOBC-*.md | 🟡 Partial | Performance dashboard |
| 11. Right tools | research/, wardley-maps/, ARC-*-TCOP-*.md | 🟢 Complete | None |
| 12. Open source | reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md | 🔴 Not Ready | Public code repository |
| 13. Open standards | ARC-*-TCOP-*.md, reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md | 🟢 Complete | None |
| 14. Reliable service | ARC-*-REQ-*.md, reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md | 🟡 Partial | Load testing results |

**Summary**:
- ✅ Strong evidence: Points X, Y, Z
- ⚠️ Adequate but needs strengthening: Points A, B, C
- ❌ Critical gaps: Points D, E

---

## Assessment Preparation Checklist

### Critical Actions (Complete within 2 weeks)

Priority: Complete these before booking assessment - they address Red ratings

- [ ] **Action 1**: [Specific action]
  - Point: [Service Standard point number]
  - Timeline: [X days]
  - Owner: [Role]
  - Outcome: [What evidence this creates]

- [ ] **Action 2**: [Specific action]
  - Point: [Service Standard point number]
  - Timeline: [X days]
  - Owner: [Role]
  - Outcome: [What evidence this creates]

### High Priority Actions (Complete within 4 weeks)

Priority: Should complete to strengthen Amber points to Green

- [ ] **Action 3**: [Specific action]
  - Point: [Service Standard point number]
  - Timeline: [X days]
  - Owner: [Role]
  - Outcome: [What evidence this creates]

- [ ] **Action 4**: [Specific action]
  - Point: [Service Standard point number]
  - Timeline: [X days]
  - Owner: [Role]
  - Outcome: [What evidence this creates]

### Medium Priority Actions (Nice to Have)

Priority: Strengthens overall case but not blocking

- [ ] **Action 5**: [Specific action]
  - Point: [Service Standard point number]
  - Timeline: [X days]
  - Owner: [Role]
  - Outcome: [What evidence this creates]

---

## Assessment Day Preparation

### Timeline and Booking

**Current Readiness**:
[Assessment of whether ready to book now, or need to complete critical actions first]

**Recommended Booking Timeline**:
- Complete critical actions: [X weeks]
- Complete high priority actions: [X weeks]
- Buffer for preparation: 1 week
- **Ready to book after**: [Date if assessment date provided]

**How to Book**:
1. Contact GDS Central Digital & Data Office assessment team
2. Book 5 weeks in advance minimum
3. Assessments typically on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday
4. Duration: 4 hours
5. Provide: Service name, department, phase, preferred dates

### Documentation to Share with Panel

**Send 1 week before assessment**:

Required documentation:
- [ ] Project overview (1-2 pages) - Use `ARC-*-PLAN-*.md` summary
- [ ] User research repository or summary - From `ARC-*-STKE-*.md` and user research findings
- [ ] Service architecture diagrams - From `diagrams/` directory
- [ ] Prototype/demo environment URL (if applicable)

Recommended documentation:
- [ ] Key ArcKit artifacts:
  - `ARC-*-STKE-*.md` - Stakeholders and user needs
  - `ARC-*-REQ-*.md` - Requirements and user stories
  - `reviews/ARC-*-HLDR-*.md` - Architecture decisions
  - `ARC-*-SECD-*.md` - Security approach
  - [List other relevant phase-specific artifacts]

Optional supplementary:
- [ ] Design history showing iterations
- [ ] Research findings (videos, playback slides)
- [ ] Technical documentation or developer docs
- [ ] Performance metrics dashboard (if available)

### Who Should Attend

**Core Team** (required):
- ✅ **Product Manager / Service Owner** - Overall service vision and decisions
- ✅ **Lead User Researcher** - User needs, research findings, testing
- ✅ **Technical Architect / Lead Developer** - Technology choices, architecture
- ✅ **Delivery Manager** - Agile practices, team dynamics

**Phase-Specific Additions**:

[For Alpha]:
- ✅ **Lead Designer** - Prototype design, user interface
- ✅ **Business Analyst** - Requirements, user stories

[For Beta]:
- ✅ **Accessibility Specialist** - WCAG compliance, assistive technology testing
- ✅ **Security Lead** - Security testing, threat model
- ✅ **Content Designer** - Content approach, plain English

[For Live]:
- ✅ **Operations/DevOps Lead** - Service reliability, monitoring
- ✅ **Performance Analyst** - Metrics, analytics, performance data

**Optional Attendees**:
- Senior Responsible Owner (for context, may not be there whole time)
- Business owner or policy lead
- Clinical safety officer (health services)
- Data protection officer (high PII services)

### Show and Tell Structure

**4-Hour Assessment Timeline**:

**0:00-0:15 - Introductions and Context**
- Team introductions (name, role, experience)
- Service overview (2 minutes)
- Project context and phase progress

**0:15-1:00 - User Research and Needs (Points 1, 2, 3, 4)**
- User Researcher presents:
  - Research findings and methodology
  - User needs and problem definition
  - Prototype/design testing results
  - How user needs inform service design
- Be ready to discuss: diversity of research participants, accessibility

**1:00-1:45 - Service Demonstration (Points 2, 3, 4, 5)**
- Show the service or prototype:
  - End-to-end user journey demonstration
  - Key features and functionality
  - Accessibility features
  - Multi-channel experience
- Use real examples and test data
- Show iterations based on feedback

**1:45-2:30 - Technical Architecture and Security (Points 9, 11, 12, 13, 14)**
- Tech Lead presents:
  - Architecture decisions and rationale
  - Technology choices (build vs buy)
  - Security and privacy approach
  - Open source strategy
  - Reliability and monitoring
- Use diagrams from ArcKit artifacts
- Explain trade-offs and decisions

**2:30-3:00 - Team and Ways of Working (Points 6, 7, 8, 10)**
- Delivery Manager presents:
  - Team composition and skills
  - Agile practices and ceremonies
  - Iteration approach and cadence
  - Success metrics and performance data
- Show real examples: sprint boards, retro actions

**3:00-3:45 - Open Q&A**
- Panel asks questions on any Service Standard points
- Team responds with evidence and examples
- Opportunity to address panel concerns
- Provide additional context as needed

**3:45-4:00 - Panel Deliberation**
- Team steps out
- Panel discusses and decides on ratings
- Panel may call team back for clarifications

### Tips for Success

**Do**:
- ✅ Show real work, not polished presentations (max 10 slides if any)
- ✅ Have people who did the work present it
- ✅ Be honest about what you don't know yet
- ✅ Explain your problem-solving approach
- ✅ Demonstrate iteration based on learning
- ✅ Show enthusiasm for user needs
- ✅ Provide evidence for claims
- ✅ Reference ArcKit artifacts by name

**Don't**:
- ❌ Over-prepare presentations (panel wants to see artifacts)
- ❌ Hide problems or pretend everything is perfect
- ❌ Use jargon or assume panel knows your context
- ❌ Let senior leaders dominate (panel wants to hear from doers)
- ❌ Argue with panel feedback
- ❌ Rush through - panel will interrupt with questions

**Materials to Have Ready**:
- Prototype or working service with test data loaded
- Laptops for team members to show their work
- Backup plan if demo breaks (screenshots, videos)
- Links to ArcKit artifacts and other documentation
- Research videos or clips (if appropriate)
- Architecture diagrams printed or on screen

---

## After the Assessment

### If You Pass (Green)

**Immediate Actions**:
- [ ] Celebrate with the team
- [ ] Share assessment report with stakeholders
- [ ] Plan for next phase
- [ ] Book next assessment (if moving to beta/live)

**Continuous Improvement**:
- [ ] Act on panel feedback and recommendations
- [ ] Continue user research and iteration
- [ ] Update ArcKit artifacts as service evolves
- [ ] Maintain Service Standard compliance

### If You Get Amber

**Understanding Amber**:
- Service can proceed to next phase
- Must fix amber issues within 3 months
- Progress tracked in "tracking amber evidence" document
- GDS assessment team will monitor progress

**Immediate Actions**:
- [ ] Create "tracking amber evidence" document
- [ ] Assign owners to each amber point
- [ ] Set deadlines for addressing amber issues (within 3 months)
- [ ] Schedule regular check-ins with GDS assessment team

**Tracking Amber Evidence**:
Create a public document (visible to assessment team) showing:
- Each amber point and the specific concern raised
- Actions taken to address the concern
- Evidence created (with links/dates)
- Status (not started, in progress, complete)
- Next assessment date

### If You Fail (Red)

**Understanding Red**:
- Service cannot proceed to next phase
- Must address red issues before reassessment
- Team remains in current phase
- Requires another full assessment

**Immediate Actions**:
- [ ] Review assessment report carefully with team
- [ ] Identify root causes of red ratings
- [ ] Create action plan to address each red point
- [ ] Re-run `$arckit-service-assessment` command weekly to track progress
- [ ] Book reassessment once red issues resolved (typically 3-6 months)

---

## Next Steps

### This Week

**Immediate actions** (within 7 days):
1. [Action 1 from critical list]
2. [Action 2 from critical list]
3. [Action 3 from critical list]

**Quick wins** (can complete in 1-2 days):
- [Quick win 1]
- [Quick win 2]

### Next 2 Weeks

**Priority actions** (complete before booking):
1. [Action from critical list]
2. [Action from critical list]
3. [Action from high priority list]

### Next 4 Weeks

**Strengthening actions** (improve Amber to Green):
1. [Action from high priority list]
2. [Action from high priority list]
3. [Action from medium priority list]

### Continuous Improvement

**Weekly**:
- [ ] Re-run `$arckit-service-assessment PHASE=[phase]` to track progress
- [ ] Update this report as evidence is gathered
- [ ] Review checklist and mark completed items
- [ ] Sprint planning includes Service Standard prep tasks

**Fortnightly**:
- [ ] Team review of assessment readiness
- [ ] Practice show and tell with colleagues
- [ ] Gather feedback on presentation approach

**Before Booking**:
- [ ] All critical actions complete
- [ ] At least 10/14 points rated Green or Amber
- [ ] Team confident and prepared
- [ ] Documentation ready to share
- [ ] Demo environment tested and working

---

## Resources

### GDS Service Standard Resources

**Official Guidance**:
- [Service Standard](https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/service-standard) - All 14 points explained
- [What happens at a service assessment](https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/service-assessments/how-service-assessments-work) - Assessment process
- [Book a service assessment](https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/service-assessments/book-a-service-assessment) - Booking information
- [Service Standard Reports](https://www.gov.uk/service-standard-reports) - Browse 450+ published assessment reports

**Phase-Specific Guidance**:
- [Alpha phase](https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/agile-delivery/how-the-alpha-phase-works) - What to do in alpha
- [Beta phase](https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/agile-delivery/how-the-beta-phase-works) - What to do in beta
- [Live phase](https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/agile-delivery/how-the-live-phase-works) - What to do when live

**Deep Dives by Service Standard Point**:
[Links to all 14 individual point pages on GOV.UK]

### Related ArcKit Commands

**Complementary Analysis**:
- `$arckit-analyze` - Comprehensive governance quality analysis
- `$arckit-traceability` - Requirements traceability matrix showing evidence chains

**Overlap with TCoP**:
- `$arckit-tcop` - Technology Code of Practice assessment (points 11, 13 overlap)

**Generate Missing Evidence**:
- `$arckit-requirements` - If user stories or NFRs weak
- `$arckit-hld-review` - If architecture decisions not documented
- `$arckit-secure` - If security assessment incomplete
- `$arckit-diagram` - If architecture diagrams missing
- `$arckit-wardley` - If technology strategy not clear

### Community Resources

**Blog Posts and Lessons Learned**:
- [Preparing for a GDS assessment](https://www.iterate.org.uk/10-things-to-remember-when-preparing-for-a-service-standard-assessment/)
- [What I learned as a user researcher](https://dwpdigital.blog.gov.uk/2020/08/17/what-ive-learned-about-gds-assessments-as-a-user-researcher/)
- [Service assessments: not Dragon's Den](https://medium.com/deloitte-uk-design-blog/service-assessments-no-longer-dragons-den-909b56c43593)

**Supplier Support** (G-Cloud):
- Search Digital Marketplace for "GDS assessment preparation" support services
- Many suppliers offer assessment prep workshops and mock assessments

---

## Appendix: Assessment Outcome Examples

### Example: Strong Alpha Pass (Green)

**Typical characteristics**:
- 12-14 points rated Green
- Excellent user research with diverse participants
- Working prototype tested extensively
- Clear technology choices with justification
- Strong multidisciplinary team
- Agile practices established and working well

**Panel feedback themes**:
- "Strong user research foundation"
- "Clear evidence of iteration based on feedback"
- "Team has right skills and working well together"
- "Technology choices well justified"

### Example: Alpha with Amber

**Typical characteristics**:
- 8-11 points Green, 3-5 Amber, 0-1 Red
- Good user research but gaps in diversity
- Prototype exists but limited testing
- Technology chosen but not fully tested
- Team in place but some skills gaps

**Common amber points**:
- Point 1: Need more diverse user research participants
- Point 5: Accessibility considerations identified but not tested
- Point 8: Iterations happening but not clearly documented
- Point 12: Open source approach decided but not yet implemented

**Panel feedback themes**:
- "Good start, needs more evidence of [X]"
- "Continue to build on [strength] and address [gap]"
- "By beta, we expect to see [specific improvement]"

### Example: Beta with Critical Issues (Red)

**Typical characteristics**:
- Major gaps in 2-3 points
- Often accessibility (Point 5) or performance data (Point 10)
- Service working but quality issues
- Security or privacy concerns

**Common red points**:
- Point 5: WCAG 2.2 AA testing not completed (critical for beta)
- Point 9: Security testing not done or serious vulnerabilities found
- Point 10: No performance data being collected
- Point 14: Service unreliable, frequent downtime

**Panel feedback themes**:
- "Cannot proceed to public beta until [critical issue] resolved"
- "This is essential for a beta service"
- "Team needs to prioritise [issue] immediately"

---

**Report Generated by**: ArcKit v{ARCKIT_VERSION} `$arckit-service-assessment` command

**Next Actions**:
1. Review this report with your team
2. Prioritize critical actions in your sprint planning
3. Re-run `$arckit-service-assessment PHASE=[phase]` weekly to track progress
4. Use checklist to track completion of preparation tasks

**Questions or Feedback**:
- Report issues: https://github.com/tractorjuice/arc-kit/issues
- Contribute improvements: PRs welcome
- Share your assessment experience: Help improve this command for others

---

*Good luck with your assessment! Remember: assessments are conversations about your service, not exams. Show your work, explain your thinking, and be open to feedback. The panel wants you to succeed.* 🚀

Operating Constraints

Tone and Approach:

• Supportive and constructive - you want the team to succeed
• Specific and actionable - avoid vague recommendations
• Realistic - don't overwhelm with too many actions
• Evidence-based - always reference specific artifacts and line numbers
• Phase-appropriate - adjust expectations based on alpha/beta/live

Quality Standards:

• Every gap must have a specific recommendation
• Every recommendation must have an owner, timeline, and outcome
• RAG ratings must be justified with evidence (or lack thereof)
• Assessment day guidance must be practical and specific
• Report must be comprehensive but scannable

Important Notes:

• This is a preparation tool, not the actual assessment
• Panel will make final decisions based on their expert judgment
• This command helps teams gather evidence and present it effectively
• Re-run weekly to track progress as evidence is gathered
• Assessment outcomes can't be guaranteed, but preparation increases success rate significantly

Example Usage

$arckit-service-assessment PHASE=alpha DATE=2025-12-15

Generates: projects/001-nhs-appointment/ARC-001-SVCASS-v1.0.md

$arckit-service-assessment PHASE=beta

Generates: projects/002-payment-gateway/ARC-002-SVCASS-v1.0.md

Success Indicators

This command succeeds when:

• Team feels confident and prepared for assessment
• All 14 Service Standard points have clear evidence or action plans
• Critical gaps identified and addressed before booking
• Team can present their work clearly on assessment day
• Assessment preparation time reduced from weeks to days
• Higher pass rates for teams using this tool

---

Transform ArcKit documentation into Service Standard compliance evidence. Demonstrate governance excellence. ✨

Important Notes

• Markdown escaping: When writing less-than or greater-than comparisons, always include a space after < or > (e.g., < 3 seconds, > 99.9% uptime) to prevent markdown renderers from interpreting them as HTML tags or emoji