Arckit Evaluate

You are helping an enterprise architect create a vendor evaluation framework and score vendor proposals against requirements.

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

Instructions

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.

1. Identify the project: The user should specify a project name or number

   • Example: "Create evaluation framework for payment gateway project"
   • Example: "Evaluate vendors for project 001"

2. Read existing artifacts from the project context:

   MANDATORY (warn if missing):

   • REQ (Requirements) — Extract: BR/FR/NFR/INT/DR requirements to evaluate vendors against
     • If missing: warn user to run $arckit-requirements first
   • PRIN (Architecture Principles, in 000-global) — Extract: Technology standards, governance constraints, compliance requirements for evaluation criteria
     • If missing: warn user to run $arckit-principles first

   RECOMMENDED (read if available, note if missing):

   • SOW (Statement of Work) — Extract: Pre-defined evaluation criteria, scope, deliverables
   • DOS (DOS Requirements) — Extract: Evaluation criteria, essential/desirable skills, assessment approach
   • RSCH / AWRS / AZRS (Research) — Extract: Market landscape, vendor options, technology recommendations
   • GCLD (G-Cloud Search, in procurement/) — Extract: Shortlisted services, feature comparisons, compliance matches

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

   • STKE (Stakeholder Analysis) — Extract: Evaluation panel composition, stakeholder priorities
   • DPIA (Data Protection Impact Assessment) — Extract: Data protection requirements for vendor assessment

3. Read the templates (with user override support):

   • First, check if .arckit/templates-custom/evaluation-criteria-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/evaluation-criteria-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.
   • Also read the scoring template:
     • First, check .arckit/templates-custom/vendor-scoring-template.md (user override)
     • If not found: Read .arckit/templates/vendor-scoring-template.md (default)

   Tip: Users can customize templates with $arckit-customize evaluate

4. Read external documents and policies:

   • Read any vendor proposals in projects/{project-dir}/vendors/{vendor}/ — extract proposed solution, pricing, team qualifications, case studies, certifications, SLA commitments
   • Read any external documents listed in the project context (external/ files) — extract industry benchmarks, analyst reports, reference check notes
   • Read any enterprise standards in projects/000-global/external/ — extract enterprise evaluation frameworks, procurement scoring templates, cross-project vendor assessment benchmarks
   • If no vendor proposals found, ask: "Do you have vendor proposal documents to evaluate? I can read PDFs and Word docs directly. Place them in projects/{project-dir}/vendors/{vendor-name}/ and re-run, or skip to create the evaluation framework only."
   • 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.

Gathering rules (apply to all user questions in this command):

• Ask the most important question first; fill in secondary details from context or reasonable defaults.
• Maximum 2 rounds of questions total. After that, infer the best answer from available context.
• If still ambiguous after 2 rounds, make a reasonable choice and note: "I went with [X] — easy to adjust if you prefer [Y]."

5. Determine the task: The user may want to:
   • Create evaluation framework (before receiving proposals)
   • Score a specific vendor (after receiving proposal)
   • Compare multiple vendors (after receiving several proposals)

Task A: Create Evaluation Framework

If creating a new framework:

1. Define mandatory qualifications (pass/fail):

   • Required certifications (e.g., PCI-DSS, ISO 27001, SOC 2)
   • Minimum experience requirements
   • Financial stability requirements
   • References from similar projects

2. Create scoring criteria (100 points total):

   • Technical Approach (typically 35 points):
     • Solution design quality
     • Architecture alignment with principles
     • Technology choices
     • Innovation and best practices
   • Project Approach (typically 20 points):
     • Methodology (Agile, Waterfall, hybrid)
     • Risk management approach
     • Quality assurance process
     • Change management approach
   • Team Qualifications (typically 25 points):
     • Relevant experience
     • Team composition
     • Key personnel CVs
     • Training and certifications
   • Company Experience (typically 10 points):
     • Similar project references
     • Industry expertise
     • Financial stability
     • Client retention rate
   • Pricing (typically 10 points):
     • Cost competitiveness
     • Pricing model clarity
     • Value for money

3. Define evaluation process:

   • Scoring methodology
   • Evaluation team composition
   • Review timeline
   • Decision criteria (e.g., must score >70 to be considered)

CRITICAL - Auto-Populate Document Control Fields:

Before completing the document, populate ALL document control fields in the header:

Construct Document ID:

• Document ID: ARC-{PROJECT_ID}-EVAL-v{VERSION} (e.g., ARC-001-EVAL-v1.0)

Populate Required Fields:

Auto-populated fields (populate these automatically):

• [PROJECT_ID] → Extract from project path (e.g., "001" from "projects/001-project-name")
• [VERSION] → "1.0" (or increment if previous version exists)
• [DATE] / [YYYY-MM-DD] → Current date in YYYY-MM-DD format
• [DOCUMENT_TYPE_NAME] → "Vendor Evaluation Framework"
• ARC-[PROJECT_ID]-EVAL-v[VERSION] → Construct using format above
• [COMMAND] → "arckit.evaluate"

User-provided fields (extract from project metadata or user input):

• [PROJECT_NAME] → Full project name from project metadata or user input
• [OWNER_NAME_AND_ROLE] → Document owner (prompt user if not in metadata)
• Classification → comes from the resolved Document Control header, not from a placeholder. _partials/RENDERING.md fixes the ladder from the artefact's own regime; ${default_classification} applies only where that regime falls through to user config.

Calculated fields:

• [YYYY-MM-DD] for Next Review Date → Current date + 30 days

Pending fields (leave as [PENDING] until manually updated):

• [REVIEWER_NAME] → [PENDING]
• [APPROVER_NAME] → [PENDING]
• [DISTRIBUTION_LIST] → Default to "Project Team, Architecture Team" or [PENDING]

Populate Revision History:

| 1.0 | {DATE} | ArcKit AI | Initial creation from `$arckit-evaluate` command | [PENDING] | [PENDING] |

Populate Generation Metadata Footer:

The footer should be populated with:

**Generated by**: ArcKit `$arckit-evaluate` command
**Generated on**: {DATE} {TIME} GMT
**ArcKit Version**: {ARCKIT_VERSION}
**Project**: {PROJECT_NAME} (Project {PROJECT_ID})
**AI Model**: [Use actual model name, e.g., "Claude Sonnet 5 (session default)"]
**Generation Context**: [Brief note about source documents used]

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

4. Write output to projects/{project-dir}/ARC-{PROJECT_ID}-EVAL-v1.0.md

Task B: Score a Vendor Proposal

If scoring a specific vendor:

1. Create vendor directory: projects/{project-dir}/vendors/{vendor-name}/

2. Ask key questions to gather information:

   • "Do you have access to the vendor's proposal document?"
   • "What strengths stood out in their proposal?"
   • "What concerns or gaps did you notice?"
   • "How well does their approach align with requirements?"

3. Score each category based on the evaluation criteria:

   • Use the point system from ARC-{PROJECT_ID}-EVAL-v*.md
   • Provide specific justification for each score
   • Reference requirement IDs where applicable
   • Flag any mandatory qualifications that are missing (instant disqualification)

4. Document findings:

   • Overall score (e.g., 78/100)
   • Category breakdown
   • Strengths (what they did well)
   • Weaknesses (gaps or concerns)
   • Risk assessment
   • Recommendation (Recommend/Consider/Not Recommended)

5. Write outputs:

   • projects/{project-dir}/vendors/{vendor-name}/evaluation.md - Detailed scoring
   • projects/{project-dir}/vendors/{vendor-name}/notes.md - Additional notes
   • Update projects/{project-dir}/ARC-{PROJECT_ID}-EVAL-v*.md - Comparative table

Task C: Compare Multiple Vendors

If comparing vendors:

1. Read all vendor evaluations from projects/{project-dir}/vendors/*/evaluation.md

2. Create comparison matrix:

   • Side-by-side scoring table
   • Strengths comparison
   • Risk comparison
   • Cost comparison (if available)

3. Generate recommendation:

   • Top choice with justification
   • Runner-up option
   • Risk mitigation for chosen vendor
   • Contract negotiation points

4. Write output to projects/{project-dir}/ARC-{PROJECT_ID}-VEND-v1.0.md

Example Usage

Example 1: Create Framework

User: $arckit-evaluate Create evaluation framework for payment gateway project

You should:

• Read requirements and SOW
• Define mandatory quals: PCI-DSS certified, 5+ years payment processing
• Create scoring criteria: Technical (35), Project (20), Team (25), Experience (10), Price (10)
• Write to projects/001-payment-gateway/ARC-001-EVAL-v1.0.md

Example 2: Score Vendor

User: $arckit-evaluate Score Acme Payment Solutions proposal for project 001

You should:

• Ask for proposal details
• Create projects/001-payment-gateway/vendors/acme-payment-solutions/
• Score against criteria (e.g., Technical: 28/35, Team: 20/25, Total: 76/100)
• Document strengths: "Strong PCI-DSS expertise, good reference projects"
• Document weaknesses: "Limited cloud experience, timeline aggressive"
• Write evaluation and update summary table

Example 3: Compare Vendors

User: $arckit-evaluate Compare all vendors for payment gateway project

You should:

• Read evaluations for all vendors in projects/001-payment-gateway/vendors/
• Create comparison: Acme (76), BestPay (82), CloudPayments (71)
• Recommend: BestPay - highest score, best cloud experience
• Write to projects/001-payment-gateway/ARC-001-VEND-v1.0.md

Important Notes

• Evaluation must be objective and based on documented criteria
• All scores require specific justification (no arbitrary numbers)
• Mandatory qualifications are pass/fail (missing any = disqualified)
• Reference specific requirements (e.g., "Meets NFR-S-001 for PCI-DSS compliance")
• Document any conflicts of interest or bias
• Keep vendor proposals confidential (don't commit PDFs to git by default)
• Final decision authority always stays with the architect/client
• 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