Show tool requirements from process point of view (e.g. back links, table in docs-as-code etc)

[AlexanderLanin]

🔍 Problem

From a process perspective, it is currently not visible which process requirements are implemented by tooling (e.g. docs-as-code).
While we have links from docs-as-code to process_description, the reverse direction is missing.

This makes it hard to answer questions like:

• "Which tools implement this process requirement?"
• "Where can I find the concrete implementation of this requirement?"

🎯 Goal

Provide a process-centric view of tooling coverage, starting with docs-as-code.

---

🔄 Bidirectional Linking via Variant

Create a variant in process_description that includes:

• a dependency on docs-as-code
• automatic backlinks from each process requirement to matching tooling requirements

Publish this variant as if it were a branch on GitHub Pages site, e.g. score-impl.

ℹ️ This would serve as a traceability-enhanced variant of the process docs, not affecting the mainline branch.

⚠️ Current Issues

• ❌ Linking problem: we need to drop the process_ prefix from links to make them resolvable from tooling.
• ❌ Unexpected placement of external needs:
  When process_description pulls in external needs (e.g. from docs-as-code), the resulting needs.json is placed in a location not expected by docs-as-code, breaking navigation and validation.