audit: SDD dimension penalizes non-AWOS repos — documented SDD-01 gatekeeper skip not implemented

[AlexanderMakarov]

Effort: ~1–2 days for the gatekeeper fix (option 1 below); ~4–5 days if the dimension is genericized (option 2).

Profit: medium — every non-AWOS repo (i.e., nearly every client repo in an org scan) currently shows a penalized spec-driven-development dimension, so the difference is visible on almost every real audit; correctness is easy to check (the gating rule is written in the dimension doc but not implemented). The deeper value is credibility: an external tester already read the dimension as "designed to be awos (and spec-driven development) promo" (Slack thread) — in a report marketed as anchored to industry standards, a dimension whose points require installing the vendor's own framework undermines the rest of the numbers.

Problem

Two layers:

1. Docs promise gating the engine doesn't implement. dimensions/spec-driven-development.md declares SDD-01 (AWOS installed) a gatekeeper: every other SDD check carries "Skip-When: SDD-01 is FAIL". But all seven SDD records in references/standards.toml are applies_when = "always", and the engine's applies_when interpreter only understands topology flags — check-level dependency skipping does not exist. Result: a non-AWOS repo hard-FAILs the whole dimension (FAILs count in the coverage denominator; the promised SKIPs would have been neutral).
2. The dimension scores vendor-framework adoption. SDD-01/02/03/05/06/07 award points specifically for AWOS artifacts (.awos/, context/product/*, the AWOS spec triad, Status: fields, **[Agent: …]** annotations), source = "AWOS convention". Only SDD-04 is framework-agnostic (AWOS/Kiro/Agent-OS/specs//docs/specs/) — and it is documented as gated behind SDD-01 anyway. A repo with a disciplined DECISIONS.md / ADR practice earns zero SDD credit.

Fix — decide the dimension's posture, then implement it

• Option 1 (minimum): implement the documented gatekeeper. When SDD-01 FAILs, SDD-02..07 become SKIP (neutral, out of the denominator), so not using AWOS is not penalized — the dimension simply reports "spec-driven workflow not adopted" via SDD-01 alone. Requires a check-dependency mechanism in the engine (or SDD-01-derived topology flag) plus standards.toml updates.
• Option 2 (fuller): genericize the dimension — credit any spec/design-doc discipline (ADRs, DECISIONS.md, design-docs/, Kiro, Agent-OS) in the SDD-02/05/06-style checks, keeping AWOS as one recognized convention among several. SDD-04 already models this.

Either way, the report should stop reading as self-promotion on repos that never opted into AWOS.

Definition of done

• Explicit maintainer decision (option 1 or 2) recorded in this issue.
• Engine behavior matches the dimension doc: on a non-AWOS fixture, SDD-02..07 are SKIP (option 1) or score generic spec practice (option 2) — no hard FAILs solely for AWOS absence; engine test pins this.
• dimensions/spec-driven-development.md, references/standards.toml, and detector logic are mutually consistent (no documented Skip-When that the engine ignores).
• Coverage ratio on a non-AWOS repo no longer degraded by AWOS-artifact checks; verified on one real non-AWOS repo before/after.
• dist/ rebuilt and committed; plugin version bumped.