Vendor Scoring

Score vendor proposals against evaluation criteria with persistent structured storage, side-by-side comparison, and audit trail.

Usage

/arckit:score vendor <name> --project=NNN    # Score a vendor
/arckit:score compare --project=NNN          # Compare all scored vendors
/arckit:score audit --project=NNN            # View scoring audit trail

Workflow

/arckit:evaluate  →  /arckit:score vendor  →  /arckit:score compare  →  /arckit:sow
   (criteria)         (score each)             (decide)                  (procure)

Scoring 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

Examples

# Score a vendor against project 001's evaluation criteria
/arckit:score vendor "Acme Cloud Services" --project=001

# Score another vendor for comparison
/arckit:score vendor "Beta Systems" --project=001

# Generate side-by-side comparison with sensitivity analysis
/arckit:score compare --project=001

# View the audit trail
/arckit:score audit --project=001

Storage

Scores are stored in projects/{id}/vendors/scores.json as structured JSON:

{
  "projectId": "001",
  "lastUpdated": "2026-03-08T10:00:00Z",
  "criteria": [...],
  "vendors": {
    "acme-cloud": {
      "displayName": "Acme Cloud Services",
      "scores": [...],
      "totalWeighted": 2.45
    }
  }
}

This file can be committed to git for team visibility and governance audit.

Comparison Features

The compare sub-action generates:

Score matrix — side-by-side scores for every criterion
Weighted totals — overall ranking accounting for criterion weights
Risk summary — aggregated risks from each vendor's scoring
Sensitivity analysis — how rankings change if criterion weights shift by ±10%

Validation

A PreToolUse hook validates scores.json before every write:

Score values must be 0-3
Criteria weights must sum to approximately 1.0
All required fields must be present
Referenced criterion IDs must exist

Governance

The structured format supports:

Audit trail — who scored what and when
Reproducibility — scores can be re-examined against original evidence
Challenge response — if a vendor challenges the decision, the evidence chain is documented
Team scoring — multiple evaluators can score independently and results can be merged

2.6 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History