Files
pm-claude-skills/skills/vendor-evaluation/SKILL.md
T
mohitagw15856 f3b9d008fe feat: 100 skills milestone — 7 new skills + quality improvements across all 93
New skills added:
- teaching-lesson-plan: structured lesson plans for any subject/audience/setting
- seo-content-brief: complete SEO briefs with intent, competitor gaps, and outline
- media-pitch: story-first journalist pitches with angle development framework
- change-management-plan: stakeholder analysis, comms strategy, adoption metrics
- workshop-facilitation-guide: activity instructions, decision protocols, facilitator moves
- sales-forecasting-model: pipeline model, scenario analysis, assumption log
- tax-planning-checklist: year-end tax planning across income, pension, CGT, reliefs

Quality improvements across all 93 existing skills:
- Standardised description format: "Verb the thing. Use when X. Produces Y."
- Added Required Inputs section to all skills missing it (prompts for missing info)
- Added Quality Checks section to all skills missing it (specific, not generic)
- Fixed broken multiline YAML descriptions
- Removed non-standard frontmatter keys (tool_integration, metadata blocks)

README updated to v6.0.0 with 100-skill count, new skill tables, and article series

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-04-20 20:52:31 +01:00

3.2 KiB

name, description
name description
vendor-evaluation Create a structured vendor evaluation framework for any procurement decision. Use when asked to evaluate vendors, compare suppliers, run an RFP scoring process, or assess a software or service provider. Produces a weighted scorecard, evaluation criteria, and recommendation framework.

Vendor Evaluation Skill

Produces a structured vendor evaluation framework — from defining criteria through to a scored comparison and recommendation.

Required Inputs

  • What you are procuring
  • Vendors being evaluated (minimum 2)
  • Key decision criteria (if known)
  • Decision makers
  • Budget range
  • Timeline to decide

Output Structure

1. Evaluation Criteria and Weights

Category Weight Rationale
Functional fit [%] Does it do what we need?
Commercial terms [%] Price, flexibility, payment
Implementation [%] How hard to get started?
Support and SLA [%] What happens when things go wrong?
Security and compliance [%] Meets regulatory requirements?
Vendor stability [%] Will this company exist in 3 years?
References [%] Who else uses this?

Weights must total 100%.

2. Scoring Rubric

  • 5: Exceeds requirements — clear best-in-class
  • 4: Meets requirements — fully satisfies with minor gaps
  • 3: Partially meets — notable gaps requiring workarounds
  • 2: Significant gaps — would require workarounds
  • 1: Does not meet — cannot satisfy requirement

3. Vendor Scorecard

Criterion Weight [Vendor A] Weighted [Vendor B] Weighted [Vendor C] Weighted
Functional fit [%] /5 /5 /5
[Continue...]
Total 100% /5 /5 /5

4. Key Questions for Every Vendor

Functional: Walk through [most critical use case]. What can your product not do that customers ask for? Commercial: What is included vs add-ons? Contract minimum term and notice period? Price protection at renewal? Implementation: Typical implementation for our size? What do you need from our team? Support: SLA for critical issues? Support included vs charged extra? Security: ISO 27001 / SOC 2 certified? Where is data stored? Breach notification process?

5. Reference Check Questions

  • How long using [vendor]? Implementation surprises? Support responsiveness? One thing you wish you had known? Would you choose them again?

6. Recommendation

Recommended vendor: [Name] | Score: [X/5] Rationale: [Specific strengths that matter for this decision] Key risks: [Risk and mitigation] Conditions: [Contract terms to negotiate before signing] Runner-up: [Vendor and why they lost]

Quality Checks

  • Evaluation criteria weights total 100%
  • Scoring rubric is defined before scoring vendors (not post-hoc)
  • Reference check questions are included
  • Recommendation includes risks and conditions, not just a winner
  • Runner-up rationale explains why they lost (enables future conversations)
  • Contract terms to negotiate are specified

Example Trigger Phrases

  • "Help me evaluate vendors for [procurement]"
  • "Create a vendor scorecard for [software/service]"
  • "Compare [Vendor A] vs [Vendor B] for [use case]"