@trohde/earos 1.3.1 → 1.4.0

package/schemas/evaluation.schema.json

@@ -126,6 +126,10 @@
           "criterion_id": {
             "type": "string"
           },
+          "criterion_question": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "description": "Human-readable criterion question text from the rubric. Included for self-contained readability."
+          },
           "score": {
             "oneOf": [
               {
@@ -237,7 +241,25 @@
     "gate_failures": {
       "type": "array",
       "items": {
-        "type": "object"
+        "type": "object",
+        "properties": {
+          "criterion_id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "criterion_question": {
+            "type": "string",
+            "description": "Human-readable criterion question text from the rubric."
+          },
+          "gate_severity": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "failure_effect": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "actual_score": {
+            "type": "integer"
+          }
+        }
       }
     },
     "overall_status": {

package/serve.js

@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ export async function startServer(fileArg) {
         process.exit(1);
     }
     const app = express();
-    app.use(express.json({ limit: '50mb' }));
+    app.use(express.json({ limit: '200mb' }));
     app.use((_req, res, next) => {
         res.setHeader('X-Content-Type-Options', 'nosniff');
         res.setHeader('X-Frame-Options', 'DENY');

package/utils/criterion-questions.js

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+/**
+ * Static lookup maps for criterion questions and dimension names.
+ *
+ * Used as a fallback when evaluation records do not embed `criterion_question`.
+ * Built from the rubric YAML files (core + all profiles + all overlays).
+ */
+// ── Criterion ID → question text ─────────────────────────────────────────────
+export const CRITERION_QUESTIONS = {
+    // Core meta-rubric (EAROS-CORE-002) — 10 criteria
+    'STK-01': 'Does the artifact explicitly identify intended stakeholders, decision purpose, and review context?',
+    'STK-02': 'Are concerns mapped to the views or sections used in the artifact?',
+    'SCP-01': 'Does the artifact define scope, boundaries, assumptions, and exclusions?',
+    'CVP-01': 'Do the selected views and representations fit the stakeholder concerns and review purpose?',
+    'TRC-01': 'Are business drivers, objectives, principles, or requirements traceably connected to the architecture content?',
+    'CON-01': 'Are terms, structures, interfaces, and facts consistent across sections and views?',
+    'RAT-01': 'Does the artifact identify key risks, assumptions, constraints, and tradeoffs relevant to the decision?',
+    'CMP-01': 'Does the artifact show alignment to applicable architecture standards, policies, and mandatory controls?',
+    'ACT-01': 'Can delivery and governance teams act on the artifact without major reinterpretation?',
+    'MNT-01': 'Does the artifact identify ownership, update expectations, and change history or provenance?',
+    // Reference architecture (EAROS-REFARCH-001) — 9 criteria
+    'RA-VIEW-01': 'Does the reference architecture include context, functional, deployment, and data flow views?',
+    'RA-VIEW-02': 'Are architecture diagrams machine-readable or accompanied by structured element catalogs?',
+    'RA-DEC-01': 'Are key architecture decisions documented with context, options considered, and rationale?',
+    'RA-DEC-02': 'Does the reference architecture clearly define what is fixed, what is configurable, and where teams have discretion?',
+    'RA-OPS-01': 'Does the reference architecture include monitoring, alerting, scaling, and disaster recovery guidance?',
+    'RA-IMP-01': 'Does the reference architecture include infrastructure-as-code templates, API specifications, or starter kits?',
+    'RA-IMP-02': 'Does the reference architecture include a clear getting-started guide or golden path for new adopters?',
+    'RA-QA-01': 'Are quality attributes defined with measurable acceptance criteria and validation approaches?',
+    'RA-REU-01': 'Is the reference architecture version-controlled with a clear evolution roadmap?',
+    // Solution architecture (EAROS-SOL-001) — 3 criteria
+    'SOL-01': 'Does the artifact explain the chosen option and the rejected alternatives at a decision-useful level?',
+    'SOL-02': 'Are key quality attributes and non-functional requirements translated into architectural mechanisms or constraints?',
+    'SOL-03': 'Does the solution architecture describe implementation dependencies, operational ownership, and migration implications?',
+    // ADR (EAROS-ADR-001) — 3 criteria
+    'ADR-01': 'Is the decision stated as a clear, testable, singular decision rather than a vague discussion topic?',
+    'ADR-02': 'Does the ADR capture meaningful alternatives and the consequences of the chosen decision?',
+    'ADR-03': 'Can a future reader understand why the decision was made and when it should be revisited?',
+    // Capability map (EAROS-CAP-001) — 3 criteria
+    'CAP-01': 'Is the capability decomposition stable, non-overlapping, and expressed at a coherent level of abstraction?',
+    'CAP-02': 'Does the map connect capabilities to business outcomes, ownership, and investment or maturity decisions?',
+    'CAP-03': 'Can the capability map be reused over time for comparative analysis without frequent structural rework?',
+    // Roadmap (EAROS-ROAD-001) — 3 criteria
+    'RD-DEP-01': 'Are dependencies between roadmap items identified and realistic?',
+    'RD-TRN-01': 'Are intermediate states between current and target architecture defined?',
+    'RD-OWN-01': 'Do roadmap items have owners, funding linkage, and measurable milestones?',
+    // Security overlay (EAROS-OVR-SEC-001) — 1 criterion
+    'SEC-01': 'Does the artifact show material threats, required controls, and control ownership at a level suitable for the review?',
+    // Data governance overlay (EAROS-OVR-DATA-001) — 1 criterion
+    'DAT-01': 'Does the artifact define key information objects, accountability, lifecycle concerns, and material data quality or privacy implications?',
+    // Regulatory overlay (EAROS-OVR-REG-001) — 2 criteria
+    'REG-ID-01': 'Are applicable regulations and compliance requirements explicitly identified?',
+    'REG-EV-01': 'Is compliance with identified regulations demonstrated with evidence?',
+};
+// ── Dimension prefix → human-readable name ───────────────────────────────────
+// Keys match the groupByDimension heuristic in AssessmentViewer:
+//   3-char prefix → parts[0]  (e.g., STK-01 → STK)
+//   longer prefix → parts[0]-parts[1]  (e.g., RA-VIEW-01 → RA-VIEW)
+export const DIMENSION_NAMES = {
+    // Core
+    STK: 'Stakeholder and purpose fit',
+    SCP: 'Scope and boundary clarity',
+    CVP: 'Concern coverage and viewpoint appropriateness',
+    TRC: 'Traceability to drivers, requirements, and principles',
+    CON: 'Internal consistency and integrity',
+    RAT: 'Risks, assumptions, constraints, and tradeoffs',
+    CMP: 'Standards and policy compliance',
+    ACT: 'Actionability and implementation relevance',
+    MNT: 'Artifact maintainability and stewardship',
+    // Reference architecture
+    'RA-VIEW': 'Architecture views and completeness',
+    'RA-DEC': 'Prescriptiveness and decision guidance',
+    'RA-OPS': 'Operational readiness',
+    'RA-IMP': 'Implementation actionability',
+    'RA-QA': 'Quality attribute specification',
+    'RA-REU': 'Reusability and evolution',
+    // Solution architecture
+    SOL: 'Solution optioning and rationale',
+    // ADR
+    ADR: 'Decision clarity',
+    // Capability map
+    CAP: 'Decomposition quality',
+    // Roadmap
+    'RD-DEP': 'Dependency realism',
+    'RD-TRN': 'Transition-state clarity',
+    'RD-OWN': 'Ownership and measurability',
+    // Overlays
+    SEC: 'Threat, control, and ownership treatment',
+    DAT: 'Information treatment and accountability',
+    'REG-ID': 'Regulatory identification',
+    'REG-EV': 'Compliance evidence',
+};
+// ── Helper ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+/**
+ * Returns the human-readable question for a criterion ID.
+ * Prefers the embedded `criterion_question` from the evaluation record;
+ * falls back to the static lookup.
+ */
+export function getCriterionQuestion(criterionId, embedded) {
+    return embedded || CRITERION_QUESTIONS[criterionId] || '';
+}

package/dist/assets/channel-BSC0F15G.js

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-import{aq as o,ar as n}from"./index-DoeSN_Oe.js";const t=(r,a)=>o.lang.round(n.parse(r)[a]);export{t as c};

package/dist/assets/classDiagram-VBA2DB6C-BHDWMOEz.js

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-import{s as a,c as s,a as e,C as t}from"./chunk-WL4C6EOR-lFR6fjR8.js";import{_ as i}from"./index-DoeSN_Oe.js";import"./chunk-FMBD7UC4-ptKQX5uF.js";import"./chunk-JSJVCQXG-DO0UU_OX.js";import"./chunk-55IACEB6-Bdkfhvrr.js";import"./chunk-KX2RTZJC-DRj2OZnD.js";var u={parser:e,get db(){return new t},renderer:s,styles:a,init:i(r=>{r.class||(r.class={}),r.class.arrowMarkerAbsolute=r.arrowMarkerAbsolute},"init")};export{u as diagram};

package/dist/assets/classDiagram-v2-RAHNMMFH-BHDWMOEz.js

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-import{s as a,c as s,a as e,C as t}from"./chunk-WL4C6EOR-lFR6fjR8.js";import{_ as i}from"./index-DoeSN_Oe.js";import"./chunk-FMBD7UC4-ptKQX5uF.js";import"./chunk-JSJVCQXG-DO0UU_OX.js";import"./chunk-55IACEB6-Bdkfhvrr.js";import"./chunk-KX2RTZJC-DRj2OZnD.js";var u={parser:e,get db(){return new t},renderer:s,styles:a,init:i(r=>{r.class||(r.class={}),r.class.arrowMarkerAbsolute=r.arrowMarkerAbsolute},"init")};export{u as diagram};

package/dist/assets/clone-BdN-3iAD.js

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-import{b as r}from"./_baseUniq-CVy7rcC1.js";var e=4;function a(o){return r(o,e)}export{a as c};

package/dist/assets/stateDiagram-v2-FVOUBMTO-B59h7VTZ.js

@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-import{s as t,b as r,a,S as s}from"./chunk-NQ4KR5QH-C4Nsf7ww.js";import{_ as i}from"./index-DoeSN_Oe.js";import"./chunk-55IACEB6-Bdkfhvrr.js";import"./chunk-KX2RTZJC-DRj2OZnD.js";var l={parser:a,get db(){return new s(2)},renderer:r,styles:t,init:i(e=>{e.state||(e.state={}),e.state.arrowMarkerAbsolute=e.arrowMarkerAbsolute},"init")};export{l as diagram};