mohitagw15856
f3b9d008fe
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>
80 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
80 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: vendor-evaluation
|
|
description: "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]"
|