docs(iso26262): artifact mapping + gap analysis#164
Merged
Conversation
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
⚠️ Performance Alert ⚠️
Possible performance regression was detected for benchmark 'Rivet Criterion Benchmarks'.
Benchmark result of this commit is worse than the previous benchmark result exceeding threshold 1.20.
| Benchmark suite | Current: d007ab5 | Previous: 19e8cba | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
store_insert/10000 |
14319493 ns/iter (± 1529125) |
11123083 ns/iter (± 445104) |
1.29 |
link_graph_build/10000 |
34576331 ns/iter (± 2797108) |
24319952 ns/iter (± 2834191) |
1.42 |
validate/10000 |
12197200 ns/iter (± 1391499) |
9675462 ns/iter (± 271441) |
1.26 |
This comment was automatically generated by workflow using github-action-benchmark.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
avrabe
force-pushed
the
docs/iso26262-artifact-mapping
branch
8 times, most recently
from
e085029 to
e5765c4
Compare
Enumerates ~40 ISO 26262:2018 work products (parts 3-9), maps each to rivet's current schemas (common, stpa, iec-61508, aspice, score, safety-case, iso-pas-8800), and records the gaps that block an honest claim of "ISO 26262 support". 32.5% EXACT, 42.5% APPROX, 25% ABSENT. Top gaps: ASIL decomposition, FMEDA with SPFM/LFM/PMHF, item definition with S/E/C-driven HARA, HSI specification, tool confidence TCL matrix. This is gap analysis only — no schemas are proposed or implemented. Refs: REQ-010, FEAT-001 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
avrabe
force-pushed
the
docs/iso26262-artifact-mapping
branch
from
e5765c4 to
fae352a
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Honest assessment: can rivet represent ISO 26262 work products today?
Single-commit design doc: `docs/design/iso26262-artifact-mapping.md`. Maps ~40 key ISO 26262:2018 work products against rivet's existing schemas.
Results
Top 3 gaps by blast radius
Verdict
No — at 32.5% EXACT coverage rivet cannot honestly claim ISO 26262 support today. But it's closer than most requirements tools (STPA, GSN, ASPICE, DFA already complete), and a bridging `schemas/iso-26262.yaml` plus three validator enhancements (ASIL arithmetic, numeric threshold rules, ASIL inheritance invariant) would take it to ~75% EXACT.
Key evidence paths (verified by reading)
Explicit caveats
Test plan
Doc only. No code.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code