Standards Analysis Reporter Skill

Domain Knowledge

• •Source Documents:
  • •STANDARDS_AND_DOCS.MD (Primary index of standards)
  • •ROVER_SOFTWARE_PROPOSAL.MD
  • •ROVER_COMMANDS.MD
  • •reports/ARCHITECTURE_ANALYSIS.MD (Technical architecture reference)
• •Primary Data Sources:
  • •landers/ (Commercial provider integration specs)
  • •rovers/ (Reference implementations)
  • •SPACE_ENTITIES.MD
• •External Framework Reference:
  • •Institutional: NASA (Artemis, CLPS), ESA (Argonaut), ISO 10788, ISO 14624.
  • •Commercial: Astrobotic (Griffin/Peregrine PUG), Intuitive Machines (Nova-C/D PUG), ispace (HAKUTO-R/APEX PUG).
  • •Interoperability: LunaNet Interoperability Specification (LNIS), CCSDS (SOIS, XTCE).

Instructions

1. •

   Institutional Standards Review:

   • •Synthesize requirements from NASA, ESA, and ISO standards as listed in STANDARDS_AND_DOCS.MD.
   • •Focus on environmental testing (ASTM E595, MIL-STD-810/461), lunar soil simulants (ISO 10788), and deep space interoperability.
2. •

   Commercial Framework Analysis:

   • •Decompose the integration requirements for Astrobotic, ispace, and Intuitive Machines.
   • •Compare power buses (28V vs 120V), data interfaces (RS-422, Ethernet, LTE), and wireless protocols (Wi-Fi, 4G).
   • •Reference specific lander profiles in landers/ for technical grounding.
3. •

   Gap & Opportunity Analysis:

   • •Identify "Interface Frictions": Use findings from reports/ARCHITECTURE_ANALYSIS.MD to pinpoint where commercial providers disagree or diverge from institutional guidelines.
   • •Pinpoint "Standardization Deserts": Where are there no current standards (e.g., standard deployment mechanisms for micro-rovers)?
   • •Propose "LORS Bridging Solutions": How can LORS-compliant rovers bridge these gaps through abstraction or universal gateways?
4. •

   Adoption Status and Benchmarking:

   • •For each major standard, explicitly state its Adoption Status:
     • •Governmental: Primary owners (e.g., NASA, ESA, CNSA) and their enforcement level.
     • •Commercial: Level of adoption by private entities (e.g., SpaceX, Intuitive Machines). Note where commercial entities "tailor" or simplify institutional standards.
   • •Use a specific categorization: De Facto Standard, Institutional Requirement, or Emerging Commercial Practice.
5. •

   Missing Information & Research TBDs:

   • •Critically evaluate the current dataset.
   • •Identify specific technical areas where information is missing (e.g., restricted PUGs, lack of deployment standards).
   • •Label these clearly as [TBD] or [RESEARCH REQUIRED] within the report to guide future data collection.
6. •

   Report Writing Standards:

   • •Academic/Scientific Rigor: Use formal technical terminology. Ensure evidence-based conclusions.
   • •Clarity & Conciseness: Avoid fluff. Use tables for comparative analysis.
   • •References: Cite specific sections of STANDARDS_AND_DOCS.MD and internal lander/rover files.
7. •

   Analysis Output:

   • •Target Output File: reports/STANDARDS_ANALYSIS.MD
   • •Structure the report to include:
     • •Executive Summary.
     • •Standards Adoption Matrix: Comparing Government vs. Commercial usage.
     • •Technical Integration Gaps.
     • •Missing Information (TBDs): A dedicated section for research gaps.
     • •LORS Strategic Recommendations.