coulomb/info-tech-canon
2
0
Fork 0
generated from coulomb/repo-seed
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add consumer alignment review kit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Bernd Worsch
2026-05-23 07:23:48 +02:00
parent f562e2498d
commit 8e591132f8
38 changed files with 2244 additions and 83 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

108
infospace/agent/review-kit/model-selection-guide.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
id: review-kit/alignment/model-selection-guide
title: Canon Model And Standard Selection Guide
status: candidate
created_by_workplan: ITC-WP-0011
selection_principle: Select the smallest canon surface set that explains the repository's producer scope, consumer purposes, current evidence, and intended alignment work.
surfaces:
- id: model/purpose-demand-extension
use_when:
- The review must distinguish producer intent, current scope, consumer purposes, demand signals, scope pressure, or evolution requests.
review_questions:
- What does the producer intend to provide?
- What purposes do consumers bring?
- Which gaps are future-scope requests rather than current defects?
- id: pattern/intent-scope-purposes
use_when:
- INTENT, SCOPE, and PURPOSES boundaries are unclear or mixed in repository documentation.
review_questions:
- Which statements are intent, which are current scope, and which are consumer demand?
- id: model/access-control
use_when:
- The repository defines users, principals, roles, permissions, policies, grants, authentication, authorization, or access reviews.
review_questions:
- Which subjects and principals exist?
- Which grants, entitlements, roles, or decisions are explicit?
- id: model/organization
use_when:
- The repository includes teams, tenants, organizations, responsibility, accountability, ownership, or actor relationships.
review_questions:
- Which organization roles are business responsibility rather than access roles?
- Which actors belong to which organization or tenant context?
- id: model/governance
use_when:
- The repository includes policy, controls, approvals, evidence, review decisions, exceptions, risks, or standards conformance.
review_questions:
- Which claims are approved, proposed, rejected, or under review?
- What evidence supports each governance claim?
- id: model/security
use_when:
- The repository manages threats, vulnerabilities, incidents, exposure, privilege escalation, secrets, or mitigations.
review_questions:
- Which mappings create security findings?
- Which exposures require controls or review?
- id: model/data
use_when:
- The repository handles datasets, information assets, classifications, retention, privacy, lineage, or data access.
review_questions:
- What data is governed or exposed?
- Which data classifications affect access or purpose fit?
- id: model/landscape
use_when:
- The repository describes systems, services, runtimes, platforms, dependencies, environments, or deployment topology.
review_questions:
- What systems and runtime resources does the repo own or affect?
- What is observed runtime state versus design-time declaration?
- id: model/devsecops
use_when:
- The repository contains build, deployment, CI/CD, GitOps, supply chain, release, or platform automation.
review_questions:
- Which automation changes runtime state?
- Which identities and artifacts flow through delivery pipelines?
- id: model/network
use_when:
- The repository includes reachability, ingress, egress, segmentation, service mesh, network policies, or exposure paths.
review_questions:
- What network boundary or exposure is claimed?
- Which claims need runtime or policy evidence?
- id: model/observability
use_when:
- The repository includes logs, metrics, traces, audit evidence, alerts, telemetry, or operational review.
review_questions:
- Which observations support evidence?
- Which signals prove or disprove access, scope, or runtime claims?
- id: model/task
use_when:
- Findings need to become remediation, review, refactor, migration, validation, or follow-up work.
review_questions:
- Which tasks belong in the consumer repo?
- Which tasks belong in the canon repo?
- id: standard/tagging
use_when:
- The repository uses labels, tags, taxonomy, classification, source roles, attributes, status, or mapping categories.
review_questions:
- Which tags are native labels versus canon classifications?
- Which source roles and evidence categories are needed?
- id: standard/caring
use_when:
- Access governance needs orthogonal analysis across subject, organization relation, role, scope, plane, capability, exposure, condition, lifecycle, and restriction.
review_questions:
- What is declared access versus effective access?
- Which native roles are actually capability profiles or assignments?
- id: profile/small-saas
use_when:
- The repository resembles a tenant-aware SaaS service or needs a small practical proof profile.
review_questions:
- Which small-saas artifacts are present or missing?
- Which tenant, policy, control, evidence, and task structures should be aligned?
- id: benchmark/caring/kubernetes-rbac
use_when:
- The repository includes Kubernetes RBAC, service accounts, namespaces, workload identity, secrets, or cluster access.
review_questions:
- Are namespaces being treated as tenant boundaries without evidence?
- Which workload permissions create derived or induced access?
selection_outputs:
- selected_surface_id
- reason_selected
- expected_review_questions
- required_evidence
- likely_workplan_type

35
infospace/agent/review-kit/review-kit.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
id: review-kit/alignment
title: Canon Consumer Alignment Review Kit
status: candidate
created_by_workplan: ITC-WP-0011
purpose: Provide a repeatable, agent-friendly process for mapping consumer repositories to InfoTechCanon and producing repo-local alignment workplans.
review_modes:
- quick-scan
- full-alignment-review
- focused-domain-review
entrypoints:
cli:
- info-tech-canon review-kit
- info-tech-canon alignment-template
api:
- GET /review-kit
- GET /alignment-template
components:
workflow: review-kit/alignment/workflow
scorecard: review-kit/alignment/scorecard
model_selection_guide: review-kit/alignment/model-selection-guide
schema: review-kit/alignment/schema
consumer_workplan_template: review-kit/alignment/workplan-template
required_outputs:
- repository_context
- selected_canon_surfaces
- mapping_findings
- scorecard
- recommended_workplans
- canon_feedback
operating_rules:
- Consumer repository changes and adoption workplans belong in the consumer repository.
- Canon pressure must be captured explicitly as proposed canon feedback, not as silent model drift.
- Evidence quality and confidence must be recorded separately from reviewer judgment.
- INTENT, SCOPE, and PURPOSES should be checked before proposing alignment work.
- Namespace, role, scope, tenant, evidence, and purpose terms must not be conflated across native systems and canon concepts.

100
infospace/agent/review-kit/review-workflow.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
id: review-kit/alignment/workflow
title: Canon Consumer Alignment Review Workflow
status: candidate
created_by_workplan: ITC-WP-0011
workflow_goal: Turn an unknown or partially understood repository into a source-linked canon alignment assessment and repo-local workplan proposal.
phases:
- id: intake
title: Repository Intake
purpose: Capture what the repository appears to provide before selecting canon surfaces.
inputs:
- README, INTENT, SCOPE, architecture docs, package manifests, tests, API specs, deployment files, and existing workplans.
questions:
- What producer intent does the repository declare?
- What current scope is evidenced by code, docs, tests, and deployment artifacts?
- Who are the likely consumers and what purposes do they bring?
- Which parts are owned by the repository and which are dependencies, adapters, generated assets, or examples?
outputs:
- repository_context
- initial_intent_scope_purpose_notes
- evidence_inventory
- id: surface-selection
title: Canon Surface Selection
purpose: Choose the smallest useful set of models, standards, profiles, benchmarks, and evaluation packs for the review.
inputs:
- repository_context
- model_selection_guide
- retrieval_index
questions:
- Which domain models are directly relevant?
- Which standards or benchmarks should stress-test the review?
- Which existing consumer packs already match the repository shape?
outputs:
- selected_canon_surfaces
- surface_selection_rationale
- id: mapping
title: Repository To Canon Mapping
purpose: Map observed repository concepts, entities, edges, APIs, policies, tasks, and artifacts to canon concepts.
inputs:
- selected_canon_surfaces
- evidence_inventory
questions:
- Which repository concepts map directly?
- Which concepts are partial fits or conflicts?
- Which mappings require stronger evidence?
- Which native terms must be preserved to avoid semantic flattening?
outputs:
- mapping_findings
- evidence_links
- unresolved_questions
- id: scoring
title: Fit Scorecard
purpose: Score alignment consistently enough to compare reviews and prioritize follow-up.
inputs:
- mapping_findings
- scorecard
questions:
- Where is fit strong enough to rely on?
- Which gaps block integration or reuse?
- Which conflicts risk wrong interpretation?
- Which findings are urgent, useful, or merely interesting?
outputs:
- scorecard_results
- prioritized_gaps
- risk_notes
- id: workplan-proposal
title: Consumer Workplan Proposal
purpose: Convert findings into repo-local workplans without moving consumer implementation work into the canon repo.
inputs:
- scorecard_results
- consumer_workplan_template
questions:
- What should the consumer repo change first?
- What validation should prove the alignment improved?
- Which tasks are refactors, documentation, schema changes, data migration, or governance review?
outputs:
- recommended_workplans
- proposed_tasks
- validation_plan
- id: canon-feedback
title: Canon Feedback And Pressure
purpose: Capture where the review suggests canon improvements without altering models or standards silently.
inputs:
- mapping_findings
- unresolved_questions
- scorecard_results
questions:
- Which gaps indicate the canon needs a new concept, profile, pattern, schema, or benchmark?
- Which findings should stay consumer-specific?
- Which proposed canon changes need a separate workplan?
outputs:
- canon_feedback
- proposed_canon_workplans
- open_questions
minimum_review_packet:
- repository_context
- selected_canon_surfaces
- mapping_findings
- scorecard_results
- recommended_workplans
- canon_feedback

87
infospace/agent/review-kit/scorecard.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
id: review-kit/alignment/scorecard
title: Canon Consumer Alignment Scorecard
status: candidate
created_by_workplan: ITC-WP-0011
rating_scale:
- id: "0"
label: absent
meaning: No useful evidence or mapping exists.
- id: "1"
label: weak
meaning: Early or ambiguous evidence exists but cannot guide implementation safely.
- id: "2"
label: partial
meaning: Useful alignment exists, with gaps or caveats that need work.
- id: "3"
label: strong
meaning: The repository maps cleanly enough for practical use.
- id: "4"
label: canonical
meaning: The repository can act as an exemplar, reusable pattern, or benchmark input.
dimensions:
- id: fit
title: Canon Fit
question: How well does the repository map to selected canon models, standards, profiles, and benchmarks?
evidence_required:
- direct mappings
- partial mappings
- unmapped native concepts
- id: gaps
title: Alignment Gaps
question: Which missing artifacts, schemas, tests, relationships, decisions, or concepts block reliable canon use?
evidence_required:
- missing surfaces
- missing validation
- missing governance or evidence
- id: conflicts
title: Semantic Conflicts
question: Which repository terms or structures conflict with canon meaning or risk flattening distinct concepts?
evidence_required:
- conflicting names
- overloaded scopes
- native terms with non-canonical meanings
- id: evidence-quality
title: Evidence Quality
question: How strong, current, and source-linked is the evidence behind each mapping or claim?
evidence_required:
- source files
- tests
- generated outputs
- review decisions
- id: implementation-priority
title: Implementation Priority
question: Which alignment work should be done first to increase practical utility?
evidence_required:
- consumer need
- blast radius
- implementation cost
- risk reduction
- id: canon-pressure
title: Canon Pressure
question: Which findings suggest the canon itself should learn, extend, or clarify something?
evidence_required:
- repeated gaps
- useful new concepts
- profile or schema pressure
- unresolved standard boundaries
- id: workplan-readiness
title: Consumer Workplan Readiness
question: Are the proposed repo-local tasks clear, scoped, testable, and anchored in evidence?
evidence_required:
- task list
- acceptance criteria
- validation path
- ownership boundary
decision_bands:
- id: ready-to-adopt
rule: Most dimensions are strong or canonical, and workplan readiness is strong.
action: Create consumer-repo adoption workplan and track residual gaps.
- id: ready-to-improve
rule: Fit is partial or strong, but gaps, conflicts, or evidence quality need work.
action: Create consumer-repo improvement workplan.
- id: needs-discovery
rule: Fit, evidence quality, or surface selection is weak.
action: Create discovery or assessment workplan before implementation.
- id: canon-feedback-needed
rule: Canon pressure is high or repeated across reviews.
action: Create or propose a canon workplan instead of changing standards inline.