Add consumer alignment review kit

infospace/agent/review-kit/scorecard.yaml

@@ -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.