html-dashboard

Imported from Yazo1968/market (plugins/startup-assessment/skills/html-dashboard/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add Yazo1968/market --skill html-dashboard. Copyright stays with the author.

HTML Dashboard & Report Generation Skill

Overview

The html-dashboard skill provides agents with comprehensive patterns and templates for generating professional reports in the startup assessment workflow. This skill covers four distinct output types that are produced at the conclusion of each assessment phase:

1. HTML Interactive Report — Multi-tab executive dashboard and detailed analysis
2. PDF Archivable Report — Adaptive format based on assessor type (investment, credit, or strategic)
3. Scored Module Register — JSON export containing all readiness and fit-to-purpose scores
4. Research Provenance Register — JSON export containing source citations and confidence levels

The skill is designed for professional assessors (venture capital, private equity, credit analysts, corporate strategists, family offices, sovereign wealth funds) who need to evaluate startup business cases and deliver actionable determinations. All reports are self-contained (inline CSS/JS with optional CDN links) and require no external dependencies beyond trusted content delivery networks.

Design System

All colors, typography, spacing, component proportions, chart palettes, and quality standards are defined in the centralized design system: skills/design-system/SKILL.md. Read and follow that file for all visual specifications. It is the single source of truth — do not define alternate color values or typography in report outputs.

The design system also contains the Quality Contract — the minimum quality bar for all outputs, benchmarked against top-tier management consultancies, leading VC firms, major credit agencies, and certified valuation professionals. Every output must meet that contract.

Key Principles

• Self-Contained HTML: Single-file reports with all styling and interactivity embedded
• Responsive Design: Mobile-friendly layouts that work across all screen sizes (1200px+, 768px, 480px breakpoints)
• Accessibility: Semantic HTML, color-blind friendly palettes, alt text for all visuals, ARIA roles, keyboard navigation
• Professional Appearance: Enterprise-grade typography, spacing, and color schemes — indistinguishable from McKinsey/Sequoia/S&P quality
• Deterministic Output: Reproducible formatting with consistent naming conventions
• Data Integrity: JSON exports preserve raw scores and provenance for audit trails
• Print Readiness: Every HTML report must render cleanly when printed to PDF with proper page breaks, margins, and preserved chart colors

Output Manifest

All outputs follow a consistent naming convention: [CompanyName]_[Phase]_[YYYY-MM-DD].[ext]

Example: Company "TechVenture Inc." assessed on 2026-03-08

Phase-Specific Outputs

The assessment workflow consists of four phases, each generating a full output set:

1. Pre-Assessment — Framework setup, domain activation, initial framework configuration
2. Assessment — Full domain evaluation, module scoring, final determination
3. Sensitivity Analysis — Robustness testing, scenario analysis, flip-point identification
4. Recommendations — Path identification, improvement roadmaps, deal term suggestions

HTML Report Architecture

Multi-Tab Structure

Each HTML report contains a tab-based navigation system that allows assessors to explore different aspects of the evaluation. The tab bar is sticky (remains visible while scrolling) and supports keyboard navigation.

Self-Contained Design

All HTML reports are generated as single .html files that can be:

• Opened directly in any modern browser (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge)
• Emailed without attachment complexity
• Archived with confidence in long-term readability
• Printed to PDF for permanent records

External dependencies are limited to:

• Google Fonts CDN (Inter typeface)
• Chart.js CDN (for interactive charts)
• No backend services required

All CSS is inline (within <style> tags) and all JavaScript is inline (within <script> tags).

Responsive Design Principles

• Desktop (1200px+): Full multi-column layouts, side-by-side charts
• Tablet (768px–1200px): Single-column primary content, stacked sidebar panels
• Mobile (<768px): Full-width single-column, collapsible sections, optimized typography

Color Coding

All semantic colors (determinations, severity, confidence, assessment modes, chart series, score-to-color gradient) are defined in skills/design-system/SKILL.md. Use the CSS custom properties template from that file in every HTML report's <style> block to ensure consistency.

Embed the design system's :root CSS custom properties block at the top of every report's <style> section, then reference them throughout (e.g., color: var(--color-go), background: var(--color-critical)).

Executive Dashboard Tab (Landing Page)

The Executive Dashboard is the first tab in every HTML report and serves as the landing page. It provides a complete visual summary of the assessment in a single scrollable page.

Dashboard Sections (top-to-bottom)

1. Determination Badge (Hero Section)

┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ CONDITIONAL GO              │ (Large, colored badge)
│ Assessment Date: 2026-03-08 │ (Subtext with date)
│ Company: TechVenture Inc.   │ (Company name)
└─────────────────────────────┘

• Large circular or rounded-rectangle badge (100+ pixels)
• Determination text centered with icon
• Colored by outcome (green/blue/amber/red)
• Company name and assessment date displayed below

2. Key Metrics Panel

Four key indicator cards in a 2×2 grid (responsive to 1×4 on mobile):

1. Overall Readiness Score — Percentage (0–100%), large number with percentage sign
2. Fit-to-Purpose Score — Percentage (0–100%), large number with percentage sign
3. Active Domains — Count (e.g., "9 of 10"), with brief explanation
4. Critical Gaps — Count (e.g., "3 Critical"), with severity indicator

Each card includes:

• Icon (assessor-relevant, e.g., clipboard, target, alert, chart)
• Label (bold)
• Value (large, colored by severity if applicable)
• Brief context or trend indicator (e.g., "↑ +5% from baseline")

3. Domain Score Heatmap

A 2×5 grid displaying all 10 domains at a glance:

┌────┬────┬────┬────┬────┐
│ M  │ T  │ F  │ C  │ L  │ (Domain abbreviations)
├────┼────┼────┼────┼────┤
│ 78 │ 62 │ 85 │ 45 │ 91 │ (Readiness score %)
│ 72 │ 58 │ 79 │ 42 │ 88 │ (Fit-to-Purpose score %)
├────┼────┼────┼────┼────┤
│ CC │ IP │ OR │ RH │ BD │
├────┼────┼────┼────┼────┤
│ 88 │ 71 │ 64 │ 92 │ 77 │
│ 85 │ 68 │ 61 │ 89 │ 74 │
└────┴────┴────┴────┴────┘

Each cell:

• Background color interpolated from red (0) → amber (50) → green (100)
• Two numbers: top = Readiness Score %, bottom = Fit-to-Purpose Score %
• Domain abbreviation as label (2–3 characters)
• Clickable to navigate to domain detail tab

Domain Abbreviations:

• M: Market & TAM
• T: Technology
• F: Financials
• C: Competitive Positioning
• L: Leadership & Team
• CC: Customer & Channels
• IP: Intellectual Property
• OR: Operations & Resources
• RH: Regulatory & Health/Safety
• BD: Business Development & Partnerships

4. Top 3 Strengths (Bullet List)

Strengths identified across the assessment:
• Domain name with brief context (e.g., "Leadership: Experienced founding team with 20+ years combined experience in industry")
• Domain name with brief context
• Domain name with brief context

• One bullet per strength
• Include domain name in bold
• 1–2 sentence explanation per bullet
• Ordered by priority/impact (not by domain)

5. Top 3 Risks (Bullet List)

Key risks and gaps identified:
• Domain name with brief context (e.g., "Competitive Positioning: Limited differentiation vs. three established competitors in addressable market")
• Domain name with brief context
• Domain name with brief context

• One bullet per risk
• Include domain name in bold
• 1–2 sentence explanation per bullet
• Ordered by severity/impact (not by domain)

6. Phase Navigation Prompts

A small section at the bottom of the dashboard:

Next Steps:
[View Detailed Findings] [Download PDF] [Export Data] [Back to Assessment]

• Buttons styled consistently with determination color
• Links to other tabs or download functions
• Text like "Assessment complete. Review detailed findings by domain or export data."

Pre-Assessment HTML Tab Structure

The HTML report for the Pre-Assessment phase includes the following 8 tabs:

Tab 1: Executive Dashboard (Landing)

• See "Executive Dashboard Tab" section above
• Determination badge, key metrics, domain heatmap, top strengths/risks, navigation

Tab 2: Assessment Framework

• Domain Activation Table: Rows for each of 10 domains, columns for "Active? (Y/N)", "Module Count", "Criticality Level"
• Framework Metadata: Assessment phase, date created, framework version, assessor name(s)
• Module Criticality Legend: Explanation of "Critical", "Important", "Contextual" levels
• Weighting Summary: How domains are weighted in overall readiness calculation (e.g., "Market (15%), Technology (12%), Financials (18%), ...")
• Notes Section: Any framework adjustments or custom configurations applied

Tab 3: Readiness Scores

• Domain-by-Domain Breakdown: One collapsible section per domain
  • Domain name (header, colored by overall domain score)
  • Readiness Score: X/100 (%)
  • Fit-to-Purpose Score: X/100 (%)
  • Module-Level Detail (collapsible):
    • Table with rows: Module Name | Readiness | Fit-to-Purpose | Status (Complete/Incomplete)
    • Color-coded by score
  • Key findings summary (2–3 bullet points per domain)

Tab 4: Fit-to-Purpose Analysis

• Fit Assessment by Domain: Parallel structure to Readiness Scores tab
• Fit-to-Purpose Criteria: Explanation of what "fit" means in this context
• Assessor Type: Shows the selected assessor profile (e.g., "Venture Capital — Seed/Series A Focus")
• Fit Commentary: Domain-specific narrative on how well the startup fits this assessor's focus areas
• Misalignment Notes: Any domains where the startup is weak relative to assessor expectations

Tab 5: Gap Register

• Gap Summary: "X gaps identified across Y domains"
• Filterable Gap Table:
  • Columns: Domain | Gap Description | Severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low) | Gap Type | Status
  • Rows sorted by severity (Critical first)
  • Color-coded severity badges
  • Clickable rows to expand into full gap details (description, impact, suggested remediation)
• Gap Distribution Chart: Bar chart showing count by severity level
• Export: Button to download gap register as JSON or CSV

Tab 6: Research Provenance

• Source Log: Chronological or alphabetical list of all sources cited
  • Each source entry: Source ID | Source Type (Interview/Document/Public/Inference) | Confidence Level (High/Medium/Low) | Date Accessed | Citation Text
• Confidence Distribution: Visual showing percentage of findings backed by High/Medium/Low confidence sources
• Research Methodology: Brief explanation of how sources were weighted and validated
• Incomplete Research Notes: Any areas where additional research is needed

Tab 7: QA/QC Log

• QA/QC Entry Table: Columns: Check ID | Category (Scoring/Data Quality/Logic) | Status (Passed/Failed/Waived) | Finding | Resolution | Assessed By | Date
• Summary: Count of passed/failed/waived checks
• Critical Findings: Any QA issues that materially impact the assessment

Tab 8: Appendix

• Session Audit Trail: Chronological log of all actions taken during the assessment
  • Timestamp | Action | Actor | Details
• Framework Construction Log: How the framework was built, any adjustments made
• Assessor Corrections: Any manual overrides or corrections applied to automated scoring
• Data Provenance: Where input data came from, any transformations applied
• Version History: Any previous versions of this assessment (if applicable)
• Standards Alignment Appendix: Mandatory — see "Standards Alignment Appendix" specification in Mandatory Disclosure Sections

Assessment HTML Tab Structure

The HTML report for the full Assessment phase includes these 6 tabs:

Tab 1: Executive Dashboard (Updated)

• Identical structure to Pre-Assessment
• Updated determination badge with final determination (GO/CONDITIONAL GO/CONDITIONAL HOLD/NO-GO)
• Updated metrics reflecting full assessment scores
• Updated domain heatmap with final scores across all 10 domains

Tab 2: Domain Findings (Deep Findings)

• One collapsible section per domain (10 total)
• Domain name (header with color by final score)
• Overall Scores: Readiness % | Fit-to-Purpose % | Determination (GO/CONDITIONAL GO/HOLD/NO-GO)
• Module Findings: Expandable list of all modules within domain with detailed findings
  • Module name | Score | Narrative findings (1–3 paragraphs of analysis)
  • Key evidence supporting score
  • Sources cited (with confidence levels)
• Domain Summary: 2–3 key takeaways for this domain
• Domain Risks: Any material risks or gaps within this domain
• Domain Strengths: Any particular strengths identified

Tab 3: Cross-Domain Analysis

• Compounding Risks: Narrative discussion of how weaknesses in one domain compound risks in others
  • Example: "Technology risk (gap in core IP) is amplified by Competitive Positioning risk (three competitors have stronger IP portfolios)"
• Reinforcing Strengths: How strengths in one domain reinforce confidence in others
  • Example: "Strong leadership team (Leadership domain) provides confidence that Technology gaps can be addressed"
• Interdependencies: Visual or narrative map of how domains interact
• Portfolio Fit: For multi-domain assessments, how the startup fits across all relevant dimensions

Tab 4: Final Determination (Reconciled)

• Determination Badge: Large, prominent, final determination
• Determination Logic: Narrative explaining the determination rationale
  • What drove the determination
  • Trade-offs considered
  • Conditions (if CONDITIONAL GO/HOLD)
  • Paths to remediation (if applicable)
• Sensitivity: Brief note on robustness (e.g., "Determination stable ±10% variation in scoring")
• Next Steps: Recommended actions based on determination

Tab 5: QA/QC Log

• Complete QA/QC checklist from assessment phase
• Any material findings or deviations from standard procedure

Tab 6: Appendix

• Full audit trail from assessment phase
• All assessor corrections and overrides
• Data transformations
• Version history
• Standards Alignment Appendix: Mandatory — see "Standards Alignment Appendix" specification in Mandatory Disclosure Sections

Sensitivity HTML Tab Structure

The HTML report for the Sensitivity Analysis phase includes these 4 tabs:

Tab 1: Sensitivity Summary

• Methodology: Which sensitivity analysis techniques were applied (e.g., Scenario Analysis, Boundary Analysis, Monte Carlo Simulation)
• Robustness Classification: Determination classified as "Highly Robust", "Robust", "Moderately Robust", or "Sensitive"
• Key Drivers: Which variables/domains have the most impact on determination
• Executive Summary: 1–2 paragraph summary of sensitivity findings

Tab 2: Analysis Results

• Scenario Analysis Results (if conducted):
  • Table: Scenario Name | Readiness Score | Fit Score | Determination | Key Changes
  • Scenarios might include "Optimistic", "Base Case", "Conservative", "Downside"
• Boundary Analysis Results (if conducted):
  • Critical thresholds identified
  • What parameter values would flip determination
  • Table: Variable | Base Value | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | Impact
• Monte Carlo Results (if conducted):
  • Distribution of outcomes
  • Histogram/chart of 1000+ simulated assessments
  • Confidence intervals for each score

Tab 3: Flip-Point Analysis

• Determination Flip Points: What would need to change for determination to flip (e.g., "If Technology score drops 12%, determination shifts to CONDITIONAL HOLD")
• Score Sensitivities: Sensitivity matrix showing impact of ±5%, ±10%, ±15% changes in each domain
• Most Sensitive Domains: Ranked list of domains with highest impact on final determination
• Trade-off Analysis: Which domain improvements would offset which domain weaknesses

Tab 4: Appendix

• Methodology details
• Assumptions
• Data used for sensitivity analysis
• Any caveats or limitations
• Standards Alignment Appendix: Mandatory — see "Standards Alignment Appendix" specification in Mandatory Disclosure Sections

Recommendations HTML Tab Structure

The HTML report for the Recommendations phase includes these 4 tabs:

Tab 1: Recommendations Summary

• Available Paths: List of recommendation paths available based on determination
  • If GO: "Proceed with standard due diligence"
  • If CONDITIONAL GO: "Path A: Proceed with conditions | Path B: Improvement roadmap before close"
  • If CONDITIONAL HOLD: "Path A: Gap remediation roadmap | Path B: Deal term adjustments"
  • If NO-GO: "Path A: Strategic improvements | Path B: Alternative structures" (if applicable)
• Recommendation Overview: High-level summary of what's recommended and why

Tab 2: Path A — Improvement Roadmap (if applicable)

• Roadmap Title: e.g., "6-Month Technology Roadmap" or "18-Month Competitive Positioning Improvement"
• Phase-by-Phase Breakdown:
  • Phase 1 (Months 0–3): Specific actions to address gaps
    • Action item | Owner | Success Criteria | Resource Requirements
  • Phase 2 (Months 3–6): Continued progress
  • Phase 3 (Months 6+): Final milestones
• Success Metrics: How to measure progress
• Risk Mitigation: Actions to reduce risk during remediation period
• Checkpoints: Recommended review points (e.g., "Reassess Technology domain at Month 3")

Tab 3: Path B — Deal Terms (if applicable)

• Deal Structure Recommendations: Suggested term sheet adjustments or protective provisions
  • Term | Rationale | Impact on Risk | Implementation Notes
• Examples might include:
  • Earn-out structures to protect against execution risk
  • Board seats or observer rights for governance
  • Escrows or clawback provisions
  • Staged funding tied to milestones
  • IP holdback clauses
  • Revenue-based protections
• Alternative Structures: If standard equity is not recommended, alternative structures (revenue share, debt, hybrid) with pros/cons

Tab 4: Appendix

• Recommendation methodology
• Benchmark data (if applicable)
• Industry standards referenced
• Detailed roadmap templates (if provided)
• Standards Alignment Appendix: Mandatory — see "Standards Alignment Appendix" specification in Mandatory Disclosure Sections

PDF Formatting Standards

Three Report Format Types

PDF reports are generated in one of three formats based on assessor type:

1. Investment Memorandum Format (for VC / PE / Angel Investors)

Sections:

1. Cover Page (Company name, date, assessor/fund name, confidentiality notice)
2. Executive Summary (1 page: determination, investment highlights, key metrics, recommendation)
3. Investment Thesis (1–2 pages: why this investment, market opportunity, team, differentiation)
4. Market Analysis (1–2 pages: TAM, market trends, competitive landscape)
5. Technology & Product (1–2 pages: technology risk assessment, product-market fit, IP status)
6. Financial Analysis (2–3 pages: unit economics, cash flow projections, funding needs, financial risk)
7. Team & Management (1 page: leadership assessment, skill gaps, bench strength)
8. Commercial Strategy (1–2 pages: GTM, customer acquisition, partnerships)
9. Risk Assessment (1–2 pages: key risks by domain, severity, mitigation strategies)
10. Valuation Considerations (1 page: comparable company analysis, suggested valuation range)
11. Investment Recommendation (1 page: determination, conditions if applicable, next steps)
12. Appendices (domain scores, gap register excerpt, key assumptions, glossary)

Tone: Professional, forward-looking, focused on upside potential and risk management

2. Credit Memorandum Format (for Debt / Credit Analysis)

Sections:

1. Cover Page (Borrower name, date, lender/analyst name, credit rating if assigned)
2. Executive Summary (1 page: credit decision, key credit strengths/weaknesses, facility requested, recommendation)
3. Borrower Overview (1 page: business description, industry position, management)
4. Financial Analysis (3–4 pages: historical financials, leverage ratios, debt service coverage, cash flow analysis)
5. Debt Service Capacity (1–2 pages: ability to repay, stress scenarios, covenant compliance)
6. Collateral Analysis (1 page: collateral offered, valuation, haircut assumptions)
7. Industry & Market Risk (1 page: industry cyclicality, competitive risks, market trends)
8. Management & Operational Risk (1 page: team assessment, operational controls, key person risk)
9. Legal & Covenant Structure (1 page: proposed loan structure, covenants, documentation)
10. Risk Assessment (1–2 pages: credit risks by domain, probability of default, recovery assumptions)
11. Credit Decision (1 page: determination, proposed terms, conditions, monitoring plan)
12. Appendices (financial schedules, ratio analysis, loan structure summary, glossary)

Tone: Conservative, focused on downside protection, debt repayment ability, and risk mitigation

3. Strategic Assessment Format (for Corporate / Family Office / Sovereign Wealth Investors)

Sections:

1. Cover Page (Company name, date, analyst/firm name, assessment date)
2. Executive Summary (1–2 pages: strategic fit assessment, determination, key opportunities, strategic risks)
3. Strategic Context (1 page: investor strategic objectives, sector focus, investment criteria)
4. Company Overview (1–2 pages: business model, current performance, strategic position)
5. Market & Opportunity Assessment (1–2 pages: market size, growth, competitive dynamics, strategic positioning)
6. Strategic Fit Analysis (1–2 pages: fit with investor's portfolio, synergies, integration opportunities)
7. Technology & Capabilities (1 page: technology assessment, capability gaps, technology integration opportunities)
8. Organizational & Talent (1 page: team assessment, cultural fit, retention considerations)
9. Financial Projections & Value Creation (2 pages: base case projections, value drivers, 5-year upside scenario)
10. Strategic Risks & Mitigation (1–2 pages: integration risks, execution risks, market risks, mitigation strategies)
11. Strategic Recommendation (1 page: determination, strategic rationale, suggested approach, next steps)
12. Appendices (detailed scoring, strategic roadmap outline, comparable transaction analysis, glossary)

Tone: Balanced, focused on strategic fit, synergies, and long-term value creation

Mandatory Disclosure Sections (All Formats)

Every report output — HTML and PDF — must include the following three disclosure sections. These are non-negotiable compliance requirements, not optional content.

1. AI-Generated Assessment Disclosure

Must appear on the cover page or executive summary page of every report. Use this exact language (adapt company/tool name as needed):

AI-ASSISTED ASSESSMENT DISCLOSURE

This assessment was generated with AI assistance using Claude (Anthropic). The AI system
conducted research, scored modules, identified gaps, and structured findings. All scores,
determinations, and recommendations were reviewed and confirmed by a human assessor at five
confirmation points throughout the workflow. The assessor retains final authority over all
conclusions. AI-generated content should be independently verified before use in investment
decisions. The AI model's knowledge has a training cutoff and may not reflect the most
recent developments. All external research was conducted via live retrieval with source
attribution documented in the Research Provenance appendix.

Standards basis: EU AI Act Article 13 (transparency), ASA AI Guidance (disclosure of AI use), SEC 2026 Exam Priorities (accuracy of AI-related disclosures), IOSCO AI/ML Principles (governance and transparency).

2. Limitations and Disclaimers

Must appear as a dedicated section in every report (typically before appendices). Content adapts per phase but must always include:

LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS

Scope: This assessment evaluates the business case submission and publicly available
information as of [assessment_date]. It does not constitute a complete due diligence
investigation, legal opinion, financial advice, or valuation.

Data limitations: Findings are based on information provided by the submitter and
independently retrieved from public sources. Non-public information, trade secrets,
and privileged communications were not available. Research confidence levels are
documented per finding in the Research Provenance appendix.

Methodology: Scoring follows a structured two-track methodology (Readiness and
Fit-to-Purpose) documented in the Assessment Framework appendix. Methodology version:
[version]. The methodology has not been validated against investment outcomes.

Forward-looking statements: Projections, scenarios, and recommendations are
forward-looking and inherently uncertain. Actual outcomes may differ materially.

Not investment advice: This assessment is an analytical tool to support professional
judgment. It does not replace independent due diligence, legal counsel, or financial
advisory services. Investment decisions should not be made solely on the basis of
this assessment.

Standards basis: AICPA VS 100 (assumptions and limiting conditions), IVS 106 (reporting requirements), IC memo best practices (limitations section).

3. Independence Disclosure

Must appear on the cover page or in the report metadata section:

INDEPENDENCE STATEMENT

This assessment was conducted using a standardized methodology applied consistently
to all submissions. The assessment tool has no financial interest in the outcome of
any assessment. [If applicable: The assessor's relationship to the submitter, if any,
is disclosed in the Assessor Profile section.]

Standards basis: AICPA VS 100 (independence disclosure), ASA BV Standards (conflict disclosure), IVS (ethical principles — non-biased).

4. Standards Alignment Appendix

Must appear as the final appendix section in every report (HTML and PDF). This is a transparency disclosure — it describes which professional principles informed the methodology. It does not claim certification, accreditation, or compliance with any standard.

Section header:

STANDARDS ALIGNMENT APPENDIX
Methodology Transparency Disclosure

Section A — Methodology Disclosure:

METHODOLOGY

Scoring methodology: [methodology_version] (e.g., "1.0.0 — 2026-03-15")
Two-track scoring: Readiness (completeness + quality) and Fit-to-Purpose
  (stage appropriateness + assessor alignment + ask coherence)
Scoring dimensions: [count] dimensions across [count] modules in [count] domains
Last methodology review: [date]
Next scheduled review: [date]

Populate from the scoring-rubric SKILL.md version header. This satisfies IOSCO CRA Code (methodology transparency) and IVS 105 (valuation approaches disclosure).

Section B — Data Governance Disclosure:

DATA GOVERNANCE

Evidence classification: Three-tier confidence system (High / Medium / Low)
  informed by the 3H Principle (Human-verified, Heuristic, Hypothetical)
Source attribution: Every finding cites source type, confidence level, and
  retrieval date in the Research Provenance appendix
Data timeliness: All evidence sources classified by staleness
  (Current <6mo / Recent 6-12mo / Aging 12-24mo / Stale 24-36mo / Expired >36mo)
  per IVS 104 data quality requirements
Conflict handling: Contradictions between submission and research are documented
  with both versions preserved; assessor resolves at confirmation point

Populate from research-protocol SKILL.md. This satisfies FAIR Data Principles (findability, accessibility) and ISO 8000 (data quality management).

Section C — Human Oversight Log:

HUMAN OVERSIGHT

This assessment includes [count] human confirmation points:

  CP1: Framework confirmation — Assessor confirmed domain activation, weighting,
       and assessment scope [timestamp]
  CP2: Content mapping confirmation — Assessor confirmed module-content assignments
       and research completeness [timestamp]
  CP3: Scoring confirmation — Assessor confirmed all domain scores and gap
       classifications [timestamp]
  CP4: Determination confirmation — Assessor confirmed final determination after
       cross-domain reconciliation and red-team challenge [timestamp]
  CP5: Report confirmation — Assessor confirmed final report content and approved
       delivery [timestamp]

All assessor overrides and corrections are logged in the Session Audit Trail
with timestamps per SOC 2 / ISAE 3402 temporal audit requirements.

Populate from the actual CP timestamps recorded during the session. This satisfies EU AI Act Article 14 (human oversight), NIST AI RMF (human-in-the-loop), and the 3H Principle.

Section D — Standards Alignment Table:

Present as a three-column table. Each row maps a principle to how it was applied. Group by demonstrability category.

STANDARDS ALIGNMENT

The following professional principles informed this assessment methodology.
This disclosure is provided for transparency — it does not constitute
certification or accreditation under any standard.

┌─────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┬─────────────────┐
│ Standard / Principle        │ How Applied                  │ Demonstrability │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ AICPA VS 100                │ Assumptions and limiting     │ Output          │
│ (Valuation Standards)       │ conditions disclosed;        │                 │
│                             │ independence statement       │                 │
│                             │ included                     │                 │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ IVS 106 (Reporting)         │ Scope, purpose, limitations, │ Output          │
│                             │ methodology version          │                 │
│                             │ disclosed per IVS reporting  │                 │
│                             │ requirements                 │                 │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ EU AI Act Art 13            │ AI disclosure on cover page; │ Output          │
│ (Transparency)              │ human oversight logged at    │                 │
│                             │ 5 confirmation points        │                 │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ IC Memo Conventions         │ Report structured as         │ Output          │
│ (PE/VC Best Practice)       │ investment / credit /        │                 │
│                             │ strategic memo per assessor  │                 │
│                             │ type                         │                 │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ ISO 31000 / COSO ERM        │ Risk scoring uses likelihood │ Methodology     │
│ (Risk Management)           │ × impact matrix (1-25);      │                 │
│                             │ residual risk assessed       │                 │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ 3H Principle                │ Evidence classified as       │ Methodology     │
│ (Evidence Classification)   │ Human-verified, Heuristic,   │                 │
│                             │ or Hypothetical; confidence  │                 │
│                             │ levels map to 3H tiers       │                 │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ IVS 104 (Data Quality)      │ Data timeliness tracked per  │ Methodology     │
│                             │ source; staleness warnings   │                 │
│                             │ triggered at 12+ months      │                 │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ IOSCO CRA Code              │ Methodology versioned;       │ Methodology     │
│ (Credit Rating Agencies)    │ 6-month review cycle;        │                 │
│                             │ scoring criteria disclosed   │                 │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ ILPA DDQ / UN PRI           │ ESG/DEI modules available as │ Methodology     │
│ (ESG/DEI Integration)       │ cross-cutting assessments;   │                 │
│                             │ activated by assessor type   │                 │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ NIST AI RMF / EU AI Act     │ AI bias testing protocol     │ Internal        │
│ Art 14 (AI Governance)      │ applied during QA/QC;        │ Process         │
│                             │ results in QA/QC log         │                 │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ SOC 2 / ISAE 3402           │ Temporal audit trail with    │ Internal        │
│ (Audit Controls)            │ timestamps; session-based    │ Process         │
│                             │ (not persistent)             │                 │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┼─────────────────┤
│ FAIR Data Principles        │ Source attribution and data   │ Internal        │
│ (Data Management)           │ provenance documented per    │ Process         │
│                             │ finding                      │                 │
└─────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────┴─────────────────┘

Demonstrability Key:
  Output          — Directly verifiable in this report's content
  Methodology     — Verifiable by examining scoring logic and data governance
  Internal Process — Requires independent audit; not fully demonstrable per-report

Standards basis: IOSCO CRA Code (methodology transparency), IVS 105 (valuation approaches), EU AI Act Art 13 (transparency obligations). The appendix itself fulfills the meta-requirement of making standards application visible to the report consumer.

Implementation notes:

• This section must appear in every report output (all phases: Pre-Assessment, Assessment, Sensitivity, Recommendations)
• In HTML reports, render as the last sub-section of the Appendix tab
• In PDF reports, render as the final appendix section before the back cover
• The table must adapt dynamically: only include rows for standards that were actually exercised in this assessment (e.g., omit ILPA DDQ row if no ESG modules were activated)
• CP timestamps must be actual timestamps from the session, not placeholders
• Methodology version must match the version declared in scoring-rubric SKILL.md

Common PDF Elements (All Formats)

• Cover Page Design: Professional letterhead, company name, assessment date, confidentiality footer, AI disclosure badge
• Headers/Footers: Page numbers, date, company name, assessor/fund name, "CONFIDENTIAL - For Internal Use Only"
• Typography:
  • Heading 1 (Section titles): 18pt, bold, color accent (determination color)
  • Heading 2 (Subsections): 14pt, bold, dark gray
  • Body: 11pt, line spacing 1.5, dark gray/charcoal
  • Monospace: 9pt for tables and data
• Tables:
  • Gray header row (background #f3f4f6)
  • Alternating white/light-gray row backgrounds for readability
  • Borders: thin, light gray
• Color Scheme: White background, dark text, accent color for headers/highlights based on determination
• Page Breaks: Logical breaks before major sections, orphan/widow control
• Appendix Formatting: Smaller font for reference material, clear section labeling

Data Export Specifications

Scored Register JSON

The Scored Register contains all domain and module scores from both Readiness and Fit-to-Purpose tracks.

Structure:

{
  "metadata": {
    "company_name": "TechVenture Inc.",
    "assessment_date": "2026-03-08",
    "assessment_phase": "assessment",
    "assessor_name": "Jane Analyst",
    "assessor_type": "venture-capital",
    "framework_version": "2.0"
  },
  "overall_scores": {
    "readiness_score": 76.5,
    "fit_to_purpose_score": 72.3,
    "determination": "CONDITIONAL_GO"
  },
  "domain_scores": [
    {
      "domain_id": "market",
      "domain_name": "Market & TAM",
      "readiness_score": 78.0,
      "fit_to_purpose_score": 74.0,
      "weight": 0.15,
      "status": "complete",
      "modules": [
        {
          "module_id": "tam_size",
          "module_name": "TAM Sizing",
          "readiness_score": 82.0,
          "fit_to_purpose_score": 80.0,
          "criticality": "critical",
          "status": "complete"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "critical_gaps": [
    {
      "gap_id": "gap_001",
      "domain_id": "technology",
      "gap_description": "Core IP protection strategy underdeveloped",
      "severity": "critical",
      "gap_type": "risk",
      "status": "identified"
    }
  ]
}

Delivery: Offered as JSON download alongside HTML report

Research Provenance JSON

The Research Provenance Register contains all sources cited and their confidence levels.

Structure:

{
  "metadata": {
    "company_name": "TechVenture Inc.",
    "assessment_date": "2026-03-08",
    "total_sources": 42
  },
  "sources": [
    {
      "source_id": "src_001",
      "source_type": "founder_interview",
      "source_name": "Interview with CEO, TechVenture Inc.",
      "date_accessed": "2026-03-05",
      "confidence_level": "high",
      "topics": ["market_size", "team_experience"],
      "summary": "CEO confirmed TAM estimates and detailed founding team backgrounds"
    },
    {
      "source_id": "src_002",
      "source_type": "public_document",
      "source_name": "Crunchbase profile: TechVenture Inc.",
      "url": "https://crunchbase.com/...",
      "date_accessed": "2026-03-06",
      "confidence_level": "medium",
      "topics": ["funding_history", "team_composition"],
      "summary": "Reviewed funding rounds and team information from public sources"
    }
  ],
  "confidence_distribution": {
    "high": 28,
    "medium": 12,
    "low": 2
  }
}

Delivery: Offered as JSON download alongside HTML report

Chart and Visualization Patterns

Domain Score Radar Chart

Uses Chart.js library via CDN. Displays all 10 domains with two overlaid datasets (Readiness + Fit-to-Purpose).

Integration: See references/chart-patterns.md for full working snippet

Gap Severity Distribution Bar Chart

Horizontal bar chart showing count of gaps by severity level (Critical, High, Medium, Low).

Integration: See references/chart-patterns.md for full working snippet

Score Comparison Bar Chart

Side-by-side bar chart comparing Readiness vs Fit-to-Purpose scores for each domain.

Integration: See references/chart-patterns.md for full working snippet

Domain Score Heatmap Grid

CSS Grid-based heatmap (no Chart.js required) displaying 10 domain cells with color interpolation from red → amber → green.

Integration: See references/chart-patterns.md for full working snippet

Score Color Interpolation

Function to convert 0–100 score to RGB color (red → amber → green gradient).

function scoreToColor(score) {
  if (score < 50) {
    // Red to Amber: 0 → 50
    const ratio = score / 50;
    const r = 239;
    const g = Math.round(158 + (94 - 158) * ratio);
    const b = 68;
    return `rgb(${r}, ${g}, ${b})`;
  } else {
    // Amber to Green: 50 → 100
    const ratio = (score - 50) / 50;
    const r = Math.round(245 - (245 - 34) * ratio);
    const g = Math.round(158 + (85 - 158) * ratio);
    const b = Math.round(15 + (39 - 15) * ratio);
    return `rgb(${r}, ${g}, ${b})`;
  }
}

Styling Standards

All typography, colors, spacing, component proportions, badge specs, score display formats, and table formatting standards are defined in skills/design-system/SKILL.md. Reference that file for:

• Typography: Inter font, type scale, monospace for data
• Light theme surfaces: Background, card, elevated, border, text colors
• Component proportions: Badges, cards, tables, score bars, score rings, tabs, buttons
• Number formatting: Commas for thousands, 1 decimal for percentages, $M/$K for currencies
• Score display: Percentage bars, SVG rings, scoreToColor() gradient

Do not redefine these values in reports — use the CSS custom properties from the design system.

Inline HTML Template Pattern

Agents must generate HTML reports as complete, valid HTML5 documents with all CSS and JavaScript inline. No external file dependencies are permitted (CDN links for Chart.js and Google Fonts are acceptable).

Template Structure

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
  <meta charset="UTF-8">
  <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
  <title>{{COMPANY_NAME}} - {{PHASE_NAME}} Report</title>
  <!-- CDN Links -->
  <link rel="preconnect" href="https://fonts.googleapis.com">
  <link rel="preconnect" href="https://fonts.gstatic.com" crossorigin>
  <link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Inter:wght@400;500;600;700&display=swap" rel="stylesheet">
  <script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/chart.js@3.9.1/dist/chart.min.js"></script>

  <!-- Inline CSS -->
  <style>
    /* All styling here - no external stylesheets */
  </style>
</head>
<body>
  <!-- Tab Navigation -->
  <nav class="tab-nav">
    <!-- Tabs here -->
  </nav>

  <!-- Tab Content Panels -->
  <div class="tab-content">
    <!-- Panels here -->
  </div>

  <!-- Inline JavaScript -->
  <script>
    // All interactivity here
  </script>
</body>
</html>

Variable Substitution Pattern

Use double-curly-brace syntax for template variables:

• {{COMPANY_NAME}} — Company name
• {{PHASE_NAME}} — Phase (Pre-Assessment / Assessment / Sensitivity / Recommendations)
• {{ASSESSMENT_DATE}} — Date (YYYY-MM-DD format)
• {{ASSESSOR_NAME}} — Assessor or analyst name
• {{DETERMINATION}} — Final determination (GO / CONDITIONAL_GO / CONDITIONAL_HOLD / NO_GO)
• {{READINESS_SCORE}} — Overall readiness % (e.g., 76.5)
• {{FIT_SCORE}} — Overall fit-to-purpose % (e.g., 72.3)
• {{DOMAIN_SCORES}} — JSON-formatted domain scores (for chart data)
• {{GAP_DATA}} — JSON-formatted gap list (for table population)
• {{STRENGTHS_LIST}} — HTML bullet list of top 3 strengths
• {{RISKS_LIST}} — HTML bullet list of top 3 risks

No External Dependencies

All CSS must be inline. All JavaScript must be inline. The only external resources allowed:

• Google Fonts CDN (for Inter typeface)
• Chart.js CDN (for charts)
• Trusted emoji or icon CDN (if icons are used)

The generated HTML file must be:

• Valid HTML5
• Openable in any modern browser without server-side rendering
• Printable to PDF without loss of information
• Fully functional when emailed or transferred (no broken links)

References Index

Detailed implementation patterns and code snippets are available in supporting reference files:

• references/chart-patterns.md — Chart.js implementations (radar, bar, heatmap), color interpolation, responsive sizing
• references/component-library.md — Reusable HTML/CSS components (badges, cards, tables, tabs, alerts, etc.)
• templates/base.html — Complete working HTML template skeleton ready for variable substitution

For specific implementation guidance, consult the appropriate reference file based on your task.

Quick Start for Agents

When tasked with generating a report:

1. Read skills/design-system/SKILL.md — this is the single source of truth for all visual identity and quality standards
2. Determine the phase: Pre-Assessment, Assessment, Sensitivity, or Recommendations
3. Embed the CSS custom properties from the design system in the report's <style> block
4. Build components using patterns from references/component-library.md — these must use the design system's colors via CSS custom properties
5. Add charts using patterns from references/chart-patterns.md — chart colors must match the design system's chart series palette
6. Structure content adaptively — choose which tabs, sections, charts, and narratives best serve this specific case. The tab structures in this file are reference patterns, not rigid templates
7. Include mandatory disclosures — AI disclosure, limitations, independence statement, and Standards Alignment Appendix (see Mandatory Disclosure Sections). The Standards Alignment Appendix must appear in every report's Appendix tab
8. Apply the quality contract from the design system — meet every checkbox in the Visual Quality Floor, Interactivity Floor, Print Readiness, and Professional Standards sections
9. Adapt tone to assessor type — use the Assessor-Type Tone Adaptation table from the design system
10. Validate: Open in browser to verify rendering, responsiveness, print preview, and interactivity
11. Deliver outputs (HTML, PDF via print, data JSON exports)

Last Updated: 2026-03-15 Skill Version: 0.2.0 Status: Ready for production use