arckit-score

name	arckit-score
description	Score vendor proposals against evaluation criteria with persistent structured storage

Vendor Scoring

You are helping an enterprise architect score vendor proposals against evaluation criteria, compare vendors, and maintain an auditable scoring record.

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

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.

Sub-Actions

Parse the first word of $ARGUMENTS to determine which action to perform:

Action 1: vendor <name> --project=NNN

Score a specific vendor against the project's evaluation criteria.

1. Read the project's EVAL artifact (evaluation criteria):

   • If no EVAL exists, tell the user to run /skill:arckit-evaluate first
   • Extract all evaluation criteria with their weights and categories

2. Read vendor proposal from projects/{id}/vendors/{vendor-name}/:

   • If the directory doesn't exist, create it
   • Read any .md or .pdf files as vendor proposal content

   Government award history (if present): When scoring criteria related to vendor experience, track record, capability, or past performance, check for a ## Government Award History section in projects/{id}/vendors/{slug}-profile.md (or a CMPT Competitor Landscape artefact in research/). If it records UK government contract wins for this vendor (values, buyers, notice URLs), cite that as objective evidence for the relevant criterion's score, carrying the caveat that awarded value is not actual spend (it evidences track record, not committed cost). Run /skill:arckit-competitors --supplier '<vendor>' to generate it if absent.

3. Read existing scores from projects/{id}/vendors/scores.json (if exists)

4. Score each criterion using the 0-3 rubric:

   Score	Meaning	Description
   0	Not Met	No evidence of capability; does not address the criterion
   1	Partially Met	Some evidence but significant gaps remain
   2	Met	Fully addresses the criterion with adequate evidence
   3	Exceeds	Goes beyond requirements with strong differentiation

5. For each score, provide:

   • The numeric score (0-3)
   • Evidence from the vendor proposal supporting the score
   • Any risks or caveats noted

6. Calculate weighted totals:

   • Use weights from the EVAL criteria (default to equal weighting if none specified)
   • totalWeighted = sum(score * weight) / sum(weight)
   • totalRaw = sum(scores)
   • maxPossible = 3 * number_of_criteria

7. Write scores to projects/{id}/vendors/scores.json:

   {
     "projectId": "001",
     "lastUpdated": "2026-03-08T10:00:00Z",
     "criteria": [
       { "id": "C-001", "name": "Technical Capability", "weight": 0.25, "category": "Technical" }
     ],
     "vendors": {
       "acme-cloud": {
         "displayName": "Acme Cloud Services",
         "scoredDate": "2026-03-08T10:00:00Z",
         "scoredBy": "Architecture Team",
         "scores": [
           { "criterionId"        
         
          
          
          
       
     
   
   

8. Output a markdown summary to console showing all scores with evidence.

Action 2: compare --project=NNN

Generate a side-by-side vendor comparison.

1. Read projects/{id}/vendors/scores.json — if it doesn't exist or has fewer than 2 vendors, explain what's needed

2. Output comparison table:

   ## Vendor Comparison: Project 001
   
   | Criterion | Weight | Acme Cloud | Beta Systems | Gamma Tech |
   |-----------|--------|------------|--------------|------------|
   | Technical Capability | 25% | 3 | 2 | 2 |
   | Security Compliance | 20% | 2 | 3 | 1 |
   | **Weighted Total** | | **2.45** | **2.30** | **1.95** |
   
   ### Recommendation
   **Acme Cloud** scores highest overall (2.45/3.00).
   
   ### Risk Summary
   - Acme Cloud: [aggregated risks from scoring]
   - Beta Systems: [aggregated risks from scoring]
   
   ### Sensitivity Analysis
   Show how the ranking changes if the top-weighted criterion weight is adjusted by +/- 10%.
   

3. Include sensitivity analysis: Vary the weight of each criterion by ±10% to identify which criteria are decisive.

Action 3: audit --project=NNN

Show the scoring audit trail.

1. Read projects/{id}/vendors/scores.json

2. Output chronological audit:

   ## Scoring Audit Trail: Project 001
   
   | Date | Vendor | Scored By | Weighted Score | Criteria Count |
   |------|--------|-----------|----------------|----------------|
   | 2026-03-08 | Acme Cloud | Architecture Team | 2.45/3.00 | 8 |
   | 2026-03-07 | Beta Systems | Architecture Team | 2.30/3.00 | 8 |
   

3. Show total vendors scored, date range, and whether any vendors are missing scores.

Default (no action specified)

If no recognised action, show usage:

Usage: /skill:arckit-score <action> [options]

Actions:
  vendor <name> --project=NNN   Score a vendor against evaluation criteria
  compare --project=NNN         Side-by-side vendor comparison
  audit --project=NNN           Scoring audit trail

Examples:
  /skill:arckit-score vendor "Acme Cloud" --project=001
  /skill:arckit-score compare --project=001
  /skill:arckit-score audit --project=001

Important Notes

• Always preserve existing vendor scores when adding a new vendor — append, don't overwrite
• Criterion IDs must be consistent across all vendors in the same project
• The scores.json validator hook will warn if weights don't sum to 1.0 or scores are out of range
• Evidence field is mandatory — never assign a score without citing supporting evidence from the proposal

Suggested Next Steps

After completing this command, consider running:

• /skill:arckit-evaluate -- Create or update evaluation framework before scoring (when No EVAL artifact exists for the project)
• /skill:arckit-sow -- Generate Statement of Work for selected vendor (when Vendor selection complete, ready for procurement)
• /skill:arckit-competitors -- Generate the vendor's UK award-history evidence for scoring (when UK government procurement context)