{ "baseline_score": 68.75, "claim_boundary": "Cloudscape can only earn these points after the work is complete and the evaluation is run again. Some of the evidence may already exist inside AWS.", "editorial": { "agent_task_summaries": { "cloudscape-accessibility-fix-review-governance-v1": { "description": "The agent had to order the public steps for documenting the defect, adding a focused accessibility test, passing review and CI, and retaining release evidence.", "title": "Review and release an accessibility fix" }, "cloudscape-accessibility-regression-governance-v2": { "description": "The agent had to order the public steps for reproducing the defect, linking an issue, adding accessibility and visual tests, passing review and CI, and recording the release.", "title": "Respond to an accessibility regression" }, "cloudscape-button-pending-label-behavior-v2": { "description": "The agent had to move a Save button through loading and disabled states, then restore it as an enabled button labeled Saved.", "title": "Show when a Save action is still working" }, "cloudscape-controlled-toggle-preference": { "description": "The agent had to manage a controlled Toggle, read Cloudscape\u2019s change event correctly, and announce whether automatic updates are enabled.", "title": "Turn automatic updates on and off" }, "cloudscape-create-configure-save-flow": { "description": "The agent had to implement create, configure, validation, focus, saving, success, failure, and retry states with exact Cloudscape components and immutable typed messages.", "title": "Complete a create-resource workflow" }, "cloudscape-dark-surface-token-boundary-v1": { "description": "The agent had to pair semantic body-text and main-background tokens for light and dark mode and reject direct CSS overrides of Cloudscape components.", "title": "Style a custom surface without hard-coded colors" }, "cloudscape-filtered-inventory-empty-state-v1": { "description": "The agent had to filter Alpha and Beta rows, show a clear no-results message, and restore both rows through a Clear filter action.", "title": "Recover from a filter with no matches" }, "cloudscape-flashbar-recovery-message-v2": { "description": "The agent had to create an accessible Flashbar error with a stable ID, update it during retry, support dismissal, and remain usable at 320 pixels wide.", "title": "Show a load error that users can retry or dismiss" }, "cloudscape-focus-visible-semantic-pair-v1": { "description": "The agent had to select Cloudscape\u2019s semantic focus-border token in JavaScript and Sass, avoid raw color values, and cite the token source supplied with the task.", "title": "Pick the token for a visible keyboard focus ring" }, "cloudscape-load-more-success-flow-v4": { "description": "The agent had to keep Alpha visible while loading, show progress, and then add Beta without causing accessibility or narrow-screen problems.", "title": "Load more results without hiding current rows" }, "cloudscape-modal-api-binding-v2": { "description": "The agent had to connect Cloudscape Button and Modal so Delete resource opens with the correct content and closes through Cancel or the documented dismissal event.", "title": "Open and close a delete confirmation" }, "cloudscape-modal-open-close-behavior-v3": { "description": "The agent had to implement a controlled settings Modal that opens from a button and closes through Cancel or dismissal without horizontal overflow at 320 pixels.", "title": "Open and close a resource settings dialog" }, "cloudscape-navigation-follow-binding-v3": { "description": "The agent had to intercept internal SideNavigation links, update the active item from Cloudscape\u2019s follow event, and avoid unsupported external-link properties.", "title": "Keep the active navigation link in sync" }, "cloudscape-public-change-review-governance-v3": { "description": "The agent had to sequence public scope, API verification, documentation, a focused test, owner review, required checks, and retained merge evidence.", "title": "Review a public component change" }, "cloudscape-release-evidence-governance-v2": { "description": "The agent had to order the public release steps: define the change and test plan, run local and CI checks, save visual and bundle-size evidence, obtain owner review, and add a release note. Undocumented deployment approval had to remain unknown.", "title": "Check a component change before release" }, "cloudscape-required-name-input-binding-v2": { "description": "The agent had to connect Input and FormField state so an empty Resource name shows an accessible error and a nonempty value clears it.", "title": "Show an error when a required name is blank" }, "cloudscape-resource-inventory-empty-state-v2": { "description": "The agent had to compose AppLayout, Table, Input, and Button so creating and filtering resources produce the correct empty and no-match states on a narrow screen.", "title": "Create and filter resources in an inventory" }, "cloudscape-responsive-content-spacing-v1": { "description": "The agent had to choose Cloudscape\u2019s element-query strategy and scaled large spacing token without inventing pixel values or media queries.", "title": "Use Cloudscape\u2019s responsive spacing system" }, "cloudscape-table-selection-api-binding-v2": { "description": "The agent had to create a typed, controlled single-selection table with Alpha and Beta rows, accessible selection labels, and valid Cloudscape imports and events.", "title": "Build a table with one selected resource" }, "cloudscape-visual-mode-token-mapping-v2": { "description": "The agent had to identify Cloudscape\u2019s semantic main-content background token in JavaScript and Sass, support both visual modes, avoid hard-coded colors, and cite the governing guidance.", "title": "Pick the AppLayout background token for light and dark mode" } }, "area_findings": { "bindings": { "summary": "Design and code assets are available, but the evaluated public evidence did not show a complete maintained mapping across them.", "what_to_change": "Publish copyable, versioned typed examples for nested navigation, required fields, and Modal composition alongside one mapping across Figma properties, design variables, released tokens, typed APIs, and approved exceptions. Fail a release when a sampled difference has no owner and rationale.", "what_we_found": "The study found useful Figma and code surfaces alongside sampled Button, Modal, density, and token differences. It did not find one versioned public mapping that reconciles Figma properties, design variables, released tokens, and typed component APIs.", "why_it_matters": "Unexplained differences force designers, engineers, and agents to guess which surface is authoritative." }, "components": { "summary": "Cloudscape has broad component coverage and detailed public quality guidance, with incomplete public proof across every required state and environment.", "what_to_change": "Publish exact TypeScript examples and negative examples for stateful component APIs, then show the required states, screen sizes, keyboard paths, and accessibility checks for each supported component with current results.", "what_we_found": "The public sources show mature components plus accessibility and responsive guidance. The study did not find one current public coverage result spanning all supported states, keyboard paths, screen sizes, and assistive-technology expectations.", "why_it_matters": "Teams need to know that components work in the difficult states and environments users actually encounter." }, "foundations": { "summary": "Cloudscape\u2019s public token model is strong; complete public proof of release-wide parity and drift control was not found.", "what_to_change": "Publish executable token-selection examples with stable source anchors and every required response field. Also confirm whether AWS compares Figma variables with every released token output and density mode; if not, add a release check that blocks unexplained differences.", "what_we_found": "The evaluated sources document semantic tokens, modes, density, and delivery. They did not provide one current public result reconciling every Figma variable, released token output, mode, and approved exception.", "why_it_matters": "Strong shared values help AWS products remain consistent across themes, densities, and implementation contexts." }, "governance": { "summary": "Cloudscape publishes contribution, ownership, and release practices; public operating trends and decisions were not demonstrated.", "what_to_change": "Set targets for reviews, migrations, adoption, exceptions, and regressions. Publish the trend, owner, and follow-up decision when a target is missed.", "what_we_found": "The public repositories describe issues, reviews, continuous integration, ownership, and release evidence. The study did not find public trend data connecting adoption, migrations, exceptions, review speed, or recurring quality results to operating decisions.", "why_it_matters": "Leaders need to see whether changes move safely, migrations finish, and recurring quality problems close." }, "structure": { "summary": "Cloudscape documents application layout and product patterns well; unified end-to-end coverage evidence was not found publicly.", "what_to_change": "Publish executable filtered-list, load-more, and create-resource references using supported imports and immutable typed state. Cover validation, loading, success, failure, retry, live announcements, and narrow screens, then require three new runs to pass every runtime check.", "what_we_found": "The evaluated guidance covers layout, validation, loading, empty states, and creation patterns. It did not provide one current public result showing complete flows passing together across focus, loading, recovery, accessibility, and narrow screens.", "why_it_matters": "Products fail where components meet data, navigation, focus, loading, and recovery, even when each component works by itself." } }, "bottom_line": "Publish versioned TypeScript examples for typed collections, navigation, Modal dismissal, Flashbar recovery, and complete creation flows. Give decision-relevant guidance stable anchors, and require generated work to pass the applicable type, interaction, accessibility, responsive, semantic, and evidence checks. Save the examples, negative fixtures, test output, evaluator version, and source snapshots for a preregistered rerun.", "central_finding": "Most saved responses missed at least one blocking requirement in both operational profiles. The result combines four different measurements: executable software, exact contract transcription, semantic selection, and governance procedure. Only the executable-software group was exercised as an implementation. Evidence compliance is reported separately so a missing citation is not described as broken software. AWS may already maintain stronger internal examples and validation; those materials can be supplied for a future, explicitly scoped evaluation.", "concrete_example": "The executable tasks checked whether saved implementations compiled and completed required browser interactions. The transcription and governance tasks instead checked whether an answer reproduced a reviewed public contract and cited its frozen evidence. The report separates these outcomes rather than describing every failure as an implementation defect.", "headline": "Cloudscape shows useful public design-system readiness, while a separate purposive agent benchmark found uneven contract compliance.", "hero": "AWS Cloudscape was reviewed to answer two questions: How well does Cloudscape stay aligned from design through production? What did one recorded agent meet in a purposive benchmark under two operational profiles?", "hero_asset": "aws", "phase_summaries": { "next": { "action": "Generate a versioned manifest of Figma variables and properties, released tokens, typed component APIs, mappings, and approved exceptions. Compare it in release CI and block unexplained differences.", "decision": "Whether a Figma, token, mapping, or component API change is safe to release.", "finish_line": "A seeded mismatch fails the release check and identifies the exact token, property, mapping, or output involved.", "owner": "Cloudscape foundations, Figma library, component, documentation, and build-infrastructure teams", "problem": "This study found unreconciled Button and Modal controls, density modes, token inventories, and no single maintained Figma-to-code mapping. AWS may already track some of these differences internally.", "save": "Cross-surface manifest, CI results, mapping coverage, compatibility report, drift trend, and approved exceptions", "title": "Keep Figma and released code aligned before changes ship." }, "now": { "action": "Publish versioned, copyable TypeScript references for SideNavigation items, Modal dismissal, Flashbar messages, filtered lists, load-more behavior, and the complete create-resource flow. Pair them with stable evidence anchors and tests for type, accessibility, interaction, responsive behavior, semantic selection, and provenance.", "decision": "Which public examples and acceptance checks reduce failures in this benchmark, without treating the result as production reliability.", "finish_line": "Each reference passes its applicable type, browser, accessibility, responsive, semantic, and evidence checks. A preregistered rerun reports each measurement kind separately and applies its preregistered decision rule.", "owner": "Cloudscape component, accessibility, pattern, documentation, and developer-experience teams", "problem": "The profile using only the evidence supplied with each task passed 24 of 60 benchmark runs. Executable failures included typed API and workflow-state problems; other failures involved exact semantic, governance, or evidence requirements.", "save": "Published references, negative fixtures, task contracts, source snapshots, runtime versions, test outputs, actor streams, and the preregistered analysis plan", "title": "Turn typed APIs and complete workflows into executable agent contracts." }, "operate": { "action": "For each operating review, publish the target, current result, trend, accountable owner, and next action for reviews, migrations, adoption, exceptions, and regressions. Record the staffing or process decision made when a target is missed.", "decision": "Where leadership should invest, delay a migration, or change staffing, ownership, or process.", "finish_line": "The team can show current trends and the decisions those trends changed.", "owner": "Cloudscape governance, release, program, and design-infrastructure leadership", "problem": "This study did not find public trend data for adoption, migrations, exceptions, review speed, or quality. AWS may track these internally; sharing current results would allow them to be assessed in a re-run.", "save": "Metrics pack with baselines, targets, trends, owners, and follow-up decisions", "title": "Use operating results to decide where Cloudscape needs investment." }, "scale": { "action": "Define the required states and environments for each supported component and flow. Run the matrix in CI and publish current pass, failure, and exception results.", "decision": "Whether a supported component or product flow is ready across Cloudscape\u2019s promised conditions.", "finish_line": "Required components, states, flows, and viewports pass with current results and owned, expiring exceptions.", "owner": "Cloudscape component, pattern, accessibility, product, and quality teams", "problem": "This study did not find one published coverage view spanning required component states, screen sizes, accessibility checks, layout rules, and end-to-end product flows. AWS may maintain broader internal results.", "save": "Component quality matrix, flow results, accessibility output, viewport coverage, and exception register", "title": "Test complete product experiences across the whole system." } }, "publisher_name": "AWS", "publisher_url": "https://cloudscape.design/", "readiness_verdict": "Cloudscape scored 68.75 out of 100 for design-through-production readiness, a mixed result. Foundations, Components, and Structure each scored 75, showing substantial public support. Bindings scored 56.25 and Governance scored 62.5, so teams still need clearer design-to-code mappings and stronger published proof that lifecycle checks run continuously. This readiness score is separate from the agent benchmark below.", "report_kicker": "Design system report", "report_title": "AWS Cloudscape design system report", "roadmap_heading": "How Cloudscape can get better", "standfirst": "Cloudscape provides a mature public component library and substantial guidance. In this purposively selected benchmark, the profile using only the evidence supplied with each task met every blocking requirement in 24 of 60 runs, and the optional official-resource profile did so in 22 of 60. Across matched task-run pairs, the optional profile helped 9 times, hurt 11 times, and made no difference 40 times. The resource tool was actually used in 12 of 60 optional-profile runs. Because the tasks were not sampled from production work and the profiles differed in more than documentation access, these results do not estimate production reliability or the causal effect of documentation.", "strengths": [ "A broad, production-oriented component library with detailed usage guidance", "Strong application-layout, validation, loading, and creation-pattern documentation", "Published accessibility and responsive test definitions for core components", "Clear public contribution, release, and ownership practices", "Public material that supported perfect controlled results for responsive spacing and public-change review across three repeated runs" ], "why_it_matters": "Readers need to know what each task measured before acting on a pass rate. Teams can use the failed executable checks to improve typed examples and complete workflows, and use the evidence results to improve stable source anchors, without treating the combined score as a Cloudscape quality rating." }, "evidence_reconciliation": { "purpose": "Before funding new work, check whether AWS teams already run the tests, mappings, dashboards, and reviews requested by this study. If they do, AWS can share current results for a re-run instead of rebuilding an existing capability.", "requests": [ "Current canonical implementations and end-to-end results for supported creation, validation, loading, recovery, and AppLayout flows", "Current checks that compare Figma variables and properties, released token outputs, typed component APIs, and approved exceptions", "Current reports showing state, responsive, interaction, accessibility, and assistive-technology coverage across the component library", "Current reports showing adoption, exceptions, migration completion, review times, and quality trends" ], "required": true }, "initiatives": [ { "acceptance_criteria": [ "Every published reference type-checks against the documented Cloudscape package version.", "The references pass their required accessibility, interaction, responsive, semantic, and evidence checks.", "A preregistered rerun reports executable, transcription, semantic, governance, and evidence outcomes separately.", "The rerun does not describe benchmark compliance as representative production reliability or documentation causality." ], "actions": [ "Publish exact TypeScript references for nested SideNavigation items, Modal dismissal, immutable Flashbar messages, filtered lists, load-more announcements, and create-resource composition.", "Show supported imports and properties beside common invalid alternatives such as Modal.closeLabel and mutable readonly message arrays.", "Give each decision-relevant guidance passage a stable machine-readable source identifier and granular anchor.", "Cover validation, focus, loading, success, failure, retry, live announcements, and 320-pixel behavior in executable tests.", "Preregister the task universe, evaluator, measurement-kind analysis, and decision rule before repeating the two recorded operational profiles." ], "classification": "observed-agent-failure", "criterion_impacts": [], "decision_enabled": "Which public examples and acceptance checks reduce failures in this benchmark, without treating the result as production reliability.", "dependencies": [], "effort": "medium", "evidence_to_retain": [ "Published TypeScript references, API schemas, negative examples, and agent-facing guidance", "Runtime tests for type, accessibility, interaction, responsive behavior, semantic selection, and provenance", "Repeated actor streams, run outputs, hashes, costs, exposure logs, and the preregistered analysis plan" ], "horizon": "now", "id": "agent-create-resource-flow-reliability", "outcome": "Designers, engineers, and agents can start from versioned Cloudscape references that use exact typed APIs, preserve required workflow state, cite the governing evidence, and pass the same checks used for acceptance.", "problem": "The profile using only the evidence supplied with each task passed 24 of 60 benchmark runs. Executable failures included typed API and workflow-state problems; other failures involved exact semantic, governance, or evidence requirements.", "projected_overall_lift": 0.0, "score_effect": "agent-performance", "sequence": 1, "suggested_owners": [ "Cloudscape AppLayout and form component owners", "Cloudscape accessibility and pattern owners", "Cloudscape documentation and developer-experience owners" ], "title": "Make typed composition and complete workflows executable", "type": "agent-reliability" }, { "acceptance_criteria": [ "Every supported design and code output appears in a dated compatibility report.", "A seeded token or property mismatch fails the check and identifies the exact surfaces involved.", "Every surface-specific difference has a rationale, owner, and review date.", "The report shows current mapping coverage, compatibility, drift, and approved exceptions." ], "actions": [ "Generate a versioned manifest listing Figma variables and properties, released token names and modes, typed component APIs, mappings, and approved exceptions.", "Resolve or explicitly classify the sampled Button dropdown and Modal size differences.", "Reconcile Figma spacing density and color inventories with released outputs.", "Run a release check that fails on unexplained differences and records owned, expiring exceptions.", "Publish compatibility, mapping coverage, drift, and approved-exception results." ], "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_impacts": [ { "area": "foundations", "criterion_id": "token_taxonomy", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "foundations", "criterion_id": "primitives", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "foundations", "criterion_id": "modes", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "foundations", "criterion_id": "delivery", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "bindings", "criterion_id": "naming_parity", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "bindings", "criterion_id": "contract_correspondence", "from_score": 2.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "bindings", "criterion_id": "token_parity", "from_score": 2.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "bindings", "criterion_id": "traceability", "from_score": 2.0, "to_score": 4.0 } ], "decision_enabled": "Whether a token, Figma, mapping, or component API change is safe to release.", "dependencies": [ "agent-create-resource-flow-reliability" ], "effort": "program", "evidence_to_retain": [ "Cross-surface manifest and comparison implementation", "Passing and intentionally failing CI results", "Compatibility, mapping-coverage, drift, and exception reports", "Approved exception and mapping-decision register" ], "horizon": "next", "id": "cross-surface-alignment", "outcome": "A change to a token, Figma control, mapping, or typed component API cannot ship with an unexplained difference.", "problem": "Cloudscape has mature foundations and useful design and code assets. The evaluated public evidence did not reconcile Button dropdown variants, Modal sizes, density modes, token inventories, and a maintained Figma-to-code mapping in one release check. AWS may already run parts of this check internally.", "projected_overall_lift": 13.75, "score_effect": "readiness", "sequence": 2, "suggested_owners": [ "Cloudscape foundations and token-build owners", "Cloudscape Figma library and component API owners", "Cloudscape documentation and build-infrastructure owners" ], "title": "Keep Figma and code aligned before release", "type": "capability-investment" }, { "acceptance_criteria": [ "Every supported component and pattern shows which states and environments apply.", "Current results cover viewports, interaction, keyboard, and accessibility requirements.", "A broken layout, focus path, validation relationship, AppLayout control, or recovery flow fails an automated check.", "Every failure and approved exception has an owner, review date, and recorded resolution." ], "actions": [ "Define required normal, loading, empty, error, disabled, recovery, and permission states for each component type.", "Test required states across supported screen sizes, keyboard paths, and assistive technology.", "Turn important layout, composition, and interaction rules into executable checks.", "Build repeatable tests for validation, create-and-save, loading recovery, empty states, modal focus, AppLayout controls, and responsive layout.", "Publish a per-release report with current results, owners, exception expiration dates, and completed fixes." ], "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_impacts": [ { "area": "components", "criterion_id": "core_coverage", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "components", "criterion_id": "state_coverage", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "components", "criterion_id": "responsive_behavior", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "components", "criterion_id": "accessibility_behavior", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "structure", "criterion_id": "layout_primitives", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "structure", "criterion_id": "composition_guidance", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "structure", "criterion_id": "patterns_templates", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "structure", "criterion_id": "interaction_ownership", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 } ], "decision_enabled": "Whether a supported component or product flow is ready across required states, accessibility conditions, and screen sizes.", "dependencies": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "effort": "program", "evidence_to_retain": [ "Versioned component and pattern quality matrix", "CI results for states, viewports, interaction, and accessibility", "End-to-end flow and layout-conformance results", "Failure and exception register" ], "horizon": "scale", "id": "system-quality-matrix", "outcome": "For every supported component and pattern, teams can see which conditions apply, which tests passed, what is exempt, and who owns any remaining problem.", "problem": "Cloudscape documents component behavior, accessibility, responsive behavior, layout, and application patterns. This study did not find one current published quality matrix covering required states, screen sizes, accessibility checks, layout rules, and complete product flows. AWS may maintain broader internal results.", "projected_overall_lift": 10.0, "score_effect": "readiness", "sequence": 3, "suggested_owners": [ "Cloudscape component and pattern maintainers", "Cloudscape accessibility and quality owners", "Product teams representing supported flows" ], "title": "Test complete product experiences across the whole system", "type": "capability-investment" }, { "acceptance_criteria": [ "General deprecation guidance states notice, support window, migration help, and enforcement points.", "Current operating results show baselines, targets, trends, and accountable owners.", "Every approved exception has a reason, owner, expiration date, and recorded outcome.", "The team can point to a staffing, release, migration, or process decision changed by the data." ], "actions": [ "Define support windows and migration help for general component deprecations and breaking changes.", "Track review time, contribution completion, migration progress, adoption, exceptions, regressions, and ownership health.", "Require each exception to have an owner, reason, expiration date, and follow-up result.", "Publish the target, current result, trend, accountable owner, and next action for each operating measure.", "Record the staffing or process decision made when a target is missed." ], "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_impacts": [ { "area": "governance", "criterion_id": "ownership", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "governance", "criterion_id": "contribution_review", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "governance", "criterion_id": "release_safety", "from_score": 2.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "governance", "criterion_id": "quality_enforcement", "from_score": 2.0, "to_score": 4.0 } ], "decision_enabled": "Where leadership should invest, delay a migration, or change staffing, ownership, release policy, or process.", "dependencies": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "effort": "program", "evidence_to_retain": [ "Deprecation and migration support policy", "Review, migration, adoption, exception, quality, and ownership trends", "Exception register with expirations and outcomes", "Quarterly decisions and follow-up results" ], "horizon": "operate", "id": "governance-outcome-measurement", "outcome": "Cloudscape leadership can see whether the system is being adopted safely, where teams are stuck, and which staffing or process change will improve the result.", "problem": "Cloudscape has documented ownership, contribution, and release practices. This study did not find public trend data for ownership health, review throughput, deprecation support, migrations, approved exceptions, or quality outcomes. AWS may track these internally.", "projected_overall_lift": 7.5, "score_effect": "readiness", "sequence": 4, "suggested_owners": [ "Cloudscape governance and release owners", "Cloudscape program and design-infrastructure leadership", "Cloudscape component maintainers" ], "title": "Use operating results to decide where Cloudscape needs investment", "type": "capability-investment" } ], "review_status": "approved", "reviewed_at": "2026-09-01", "roadmap_format": "ds-eval/implementation-roadmap@1", "score_ceiling": [ { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "foundations", "area_label": "Foundations", "ceiling_anchor": "The token graph is validated, measured, and maintained across consumers", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "token_taxonomy", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Score 4 requires the token graph to be validated, measured, and maintained across consumers; the only automated check observed is a same-repo snapshot test comparing two internal themes (classic, visual-refresh) to a stored snapshot \u2014 there is no evidence of cross-consumer measurement, drift detection, or maintained ownership metrics for the token graph itself.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Token taxonomy and semantics", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "The token graph is validated, measured, and maintained across consumers", "recommended_change": "Publish or surface evidence of cross-consumer token validation (e.g. a token-graph linter run against downstream theming-build/theming-runtime consumers, or adoption telemetry) to support a score of 4." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "foundations", "area_label": "Foundations", "ceiling_anchor": "Primitive coverage and adoption are measured and governed", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "primitives", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Anchor 4 requires measured and governed primitive coverage/adoption (e.g., lint rules enforcing token-only styling, or a published adoption metric). No such measurement or governance artifact is present in the evidence packet.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Primitive completeness", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Primitive coverage and adoption are measured and governed", "recommended_change": "Surface public evidence of primitive-adoption enforcement (e.g., stylelint rules against raw px/hex values, or a published usage audit) to support anchor 4." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "foundations", "area_label": "Foundations", "ceiling_anchor": "Mode compatibility is continuously validated across supported consumers", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "modes", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Anchor 4 requires mode compatibility to be continuously validated across supported consumers. The only automated artifact observed is a two-theme snapshot test for token JSON output (design-tokens.test.ts); there is no evidence of automated cross-mode (e.g., dark+compact+RTL) regression testing or validation across multiple downstream consumer packages.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Modes and adaptation", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Mode compatibility is continuously validated across supported consumers", "recommended_change": "Publish evidence of automated, continuous validation of mode combinations (e.g., visual regression across dark/compact/RTL permutations) across the packages that consume these tokens to support anchor 4." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "foundations", "area_label": "Foundations", "ceiling_anchor": "Delivery contracts are validated and migration impact is measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "delivery", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Score 4 requires delivery contracts to be validated and migration impact measured; no changelog/semver-diff tooling, consumer-impact measurement, or breaking-change gate was evidenced \u2014 only shape-level snapshot validation of generated token JSON.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Consumable delivery and versioning", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Delivery contracts are validated and migration impact is measured", "recommended_change": "Include the published npm package.json (or registry metadata) for the exact evaluated version alongside repository source, and add migration-impact evidence (e.g. semver-diff or changelog-linked breaking-change reports) to support a score of 4." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "bindings", "area_label": "Bindings", "ceiling_anchor": "Parity is automatically checked and drift is measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "naming_parity", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "No evidence of an automated naming-parity check (e.g., a lint rule, Code Connect script, or CI job) that measures or reports naming drift between the Figma library and the npm package \u2014 required for the automated-validation anchor.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Naming parity", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Parity is automatically checked and drift is measured", "recommended_change": "None required for the sampled set; extend the same explicit disposition/rationale metadata already used for Button and Spinner to the remaining catalog components so naming decisions are documented system-wide rather than inferred by a reviewer." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 2.0, "area": "bindings", "area_label": "Bindings", "ceiling_anchor": "Machine-readable mappings continuously validate shared contracts and explicitly classify surface-specific controls", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "contract_correspondence", "current_score": 2.0, "gap": "Reaching anchor 3 requires that every surface-specific control in the sample be explicitly classified; the Button Dropdown/Dropdown+Main Type options and the Modal x-large/xx-large size values are unexplained gaps with no documented disposition in the evidence packet, so they remain genuine_gap rather than justified exclusions.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Design-to-code contract correspondence", "maximum_overall_lift": 2.5, "next_anchor": "Supported choices, derived states, slots, and composition map coherently, and surface-specific controls are explicitly classified", "recommended_change": "Classify the Dropdown/Dropdown+Main Button Type options as design_only (representing the trigger portion of the separate ButtonDropdown component) or add matching code support; extend the Modal Figma component set's Size variant to include x-large/xx-large, or publish a rationale for their exclusion from the design library." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 2.0, "area": "bindings", "area_label": "Bindings", "ceiling_anchor": "Cross-surface token parity is automatically validated", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "token_parity", "current_score": 2.0, "gap": "Reaching anchor 3 would require the Figma spacing collection to model a comfortable/compact density mode matching the code's createDensityMode dimension, and a reconciliation of the raw Figma variable count (703 total / 615 color) against the number of tokens documented on the public design-tokens page (407 colors), since this gap is currently unexplained in the evidence.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Token parity", "maximum_overall_lift": 2.5, "next_anchor": "Token identity and modes align across design and code", "recommended_change": "Extend the Figma spacing variable collection with a density mode dimension mirroring the code's comfortable/compact modes, or explicitly document that spacing density is intentionally an implementation-only concern not modeled in the design source." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 2.0, "area": "bindings", "area_label": "Bindings", "ceiling_anchor": "Traceability and deprecation drift are automatically enforced", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "traceability", "current_score": 2.0, "gap": "A publisher-maintained, versioned Figma-to-code mapping\u2014such as Code Connect or an equivalent manifest\u2014covering current and deprecated design-side assets is needed to establish cross-surface traceability.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Traceability and deprecation", "maximum_overall_lift": 2.5, "next_anchor": "Versioned mappings expose supported and deprecated APIs", "recommended_change": "Publish a versioned Figma-to-code identifier mapping (or adopt Code Connect) so deprecated or renamed design assets can be traced to their code equivalents the same way deprecated code props already are traced within the component-api manifest." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "components", "area_label": "Components", "ceiling_anchor": "Gaps, adoption, and component health are measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "core_coverage", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "No public evidence of measured adoption, gap tracking, or component health metrics (required for score 4); cloudscape-governance known_limitations explicitly states adoption dashboards and internal test results are outside this public evaluation.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Core component coverage", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Gaps, adoption, and component health are measured", "recommended_change": "Publish a public catalog gap-analysis, adoption, or component-health dashboard to support a higher (4) score in future evaluations" }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "components", "area_label": "Components", "ceiling_anchor": "State contracts are executable, tested, and measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "state_coverage", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "No execution/measurement evidence (CI pass/fail results, coverage dashboards) ties these state contracts to continuous testing; permission-specific state behavior and state-transition tests for input, toggle, side-navigation, cards, and spinner are not directly shown in this packet, so a score of 4 is unsupported.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Normal, recovery, and permission states", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "State contracts are executable, tested, and measured", "recommended_change": "Provide direct unit/integration test evidence for input, toggle, side-navigation, cards, and spinner state transitions, and for permission-denied scenarios, to substantiate a higher score" }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "components", "area_label": "Components", "ceiling_anchor": "Responsive behavior is continuously tested across the matrix", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "responsive_behavior", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Current automated execution results covering the supported viewport, container, theme, density, and content matrix\u2014along with tracked responsive regressions\u2014are needed to establish continuous validation.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Responsive behavior", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Responsive behavior is continuously tested across the matrix", "recommended_change": "Surface visual-regression/CI run results (e.g., from the referenced visual-regression workflow) so responsive behavior can be confirmed as continuously validated rather than validated only at the point these test files were authored." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "components", "area_label": "Components", "ceiling_anchor": "Assistive-technology coverage and regressions are continuously measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "accessibility_behavior", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Dedicated automated accessibility-regression test files (a11y-refresh-dark.test.ts, a11y-refresh-light.test.ts, table/__tests__/a11y.test.tsx) exist per the file listing, but their content, pass/fail results, or CI gating were not included in this evidence packet, so continuous AT-coverage measurement cannot be confirmed for a score of 4.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Accessibility behavior", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Assistive-technology coverage and regressions are continuously measured", "recommended_change": "Include content/results from the a11y-refresh-dark/light test suites and table a11y.test.tsx, or CI gating configuration, to substantiate continuously-measured AT coverage" }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "structure", "area_label": "Structure", "ceiling_anchor": "Layout use and exceptions are validated and measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "layout_primitives", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "No observed automated validation or measurement of layout use/exceptions (e.g. breakpoint or visual-regression execution results) was present in the supplied evidence text, only test file paths without visible content, so 'validated and measured' cannot be scored.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Layout primitives", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Layout use and exceptions are validated and measured", "recommended_change": "Surface CI visual-regression or breakpoint-conformance results (e.g. from the referenced app-layout-responsive visual tests) as directly cited evidence to support a higher anchor." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "structure", "area_label": "Structure", "ceiling_anchor": "Composition rules are executable or automatically validated", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "composition_guidance", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "No automated or executable enforcement of composition rules (e.g. a lint/test failing if a full-page cards instance is not first in the content slot) was present in the evidence, so 'executable or automatically validated' cannot be scored.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Composition guidance", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Composition rules are executable or automatically validated", "recommended_change": "Cite or add automated checks (lint rule, structural test) that fail when a documented composition rule (e.g. full-page cards not first in content) is violated, to support a higher anchor." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "structure", "area_label": "Structure", "ceiling_anchor": "Pattern use, outcomes, and lifecycle are measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "patterns_templates", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "No evidence of pattern usage, outcome, or lifecycle measurement (e.g. adoption analytics, deprecation tracking) was present in the supplied evidence, so 'pattern use, outcomes, and lifecycle are measured' cannot be scored.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Patterns and templates", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Pattern use, outcomes, and lifecycle are measured", "recommended_change": "If pattern adoption or outcome data exists internally, surface it publicly (or cite it) to support measurement-based scoring; otherwise this remains a documentation-level ceiling." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "structure", "area_label": "Structure", "ceiling_anchor": "Cross-composition contracts are executable and continuously verified", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "interaction_ownership", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Current continuous-execution results for the AppLayout focus contracts, plus equivalent implementation or test coverage for loading-recovery and empty-state-recovery transitions, are needed to establish executable and continuously verified cross-composition ownership.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Navigation, focus, and state ownership", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Cross-composition contracts are executable and continuously verified", "recommended_change": "Extend automated focus/state-ownership testing analogous to app-layout-focus-delegation.test.ts to table and cards loading/error/recovery transitions, and surface CI run evidence (e.g. workflow results) for the existing app-layout tests to support scoring toward anchor 4." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "governance", "area_label": "Governance", "ceiling_anchor": "Ownership health and service expectations are measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "ownership", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "No public ownership health or service-expectation metrics (e.g., response-time SLAs, staffing/coverage data) are evidenced, which anchor 4 requires.", "initiative_ids": [ "governance-outcome-measurement" ], "label": "Named ownership", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Ownership health and service expectations are measured", "recommended_change": "Publish component/area-level ownership detail and ownership health indicators (e.g., response-time data, staffing coverage) to move toward measured ownership maturity." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "governance", "area_label": "Governance", "ceiling_anchor": "Review quality, throughput, and outcomes are measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "contribution_review", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "No evidence of measured review quality, throughput, or outcomes (e.g., review latency, defect escape rate, rejection rate) is present, which anchor 4 requires.", "initiative_ids": [ "governance-outcome-measurement" ], "label": "Contribution and review", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Review quality, throughput, and outcomes are measured", "recommended_change": "Track and publish review/CI outcome metrics (e.g., pass rates, review latency, post-merge defect rate) to support a higher score, and confirm whether code-owner review is enforced via branch protection." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 2.0, "area": "governance", "area_label": "Governance", "ceiling_anchor": "Compatibility and migration success are validated and measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "release_safety", "current_score": 2.0, "gap": "Anchor 3 requires deprecation and migration to have explicit operational contracts (e.g., stated notice periods, support overlap windows, or systematic migration tooling/codemods). The packet only evidences a tagging convention plus one named migration guide (charts), not a general, enforced deprecation/migration policy, so this anchor is not fully met.", "initiative_ids": [ "governance-outcome-measurement" ], "label": "Releases, migration, and deprecation", "maximum_overall_lift": 2.5, "next_anchor": "Deprecation and migration have explicit operational contracts", "recommended_change": "Publish an explicit deprecation/migration policy (notice period, supported overlap window, migration tooling scope) and extend migration guidance beyond charts to other breaking transitions." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 2.0, "area": "governance", "area_label": "Governance", "ceiling_anchor": "Quality, adoption, exceptions, and regressions are measured and acted on", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "quality_enforcement", "current_score": 2.0, "gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Quality gates cover the supported lifecycle and exceptions", "initiative_ids": [ "governance-outcome-measurement" ], "label": "Quality enforcement and feedback", "maximum_overall_lift": 2.5, "next_anchor": "Quality gates cover the supported lifecycle and exceptions", "recommended_change": "Document how exceptions to automated gates (e.g., an accepted visual diff or a11y waiver) are recorded and tracked, and publish gate-outcome metrics (pass rates, flake rates) to support measurement-based scoring." } ], "scorecard_fingerprint": "ef4638a6734cc1ada6824f879ba29d544d01af890fe5d243a74d7ff166b09703", "system": "cloudscape", "system_name": "Cloudscape", "target_score": 100.0, "visibility": "public" }