mohitagw15856
036511ab3e
Broadens both reach (more tools) and content types (an MCP server), continuing the multi-platform story. Windsurf + Aider: - build-exports.mjs gains two platforms: exports/windsurf/*.md (workspace rules, trigger: model_decision) and exports/aider/*.md (conventions for `aider --read`). Now 5 platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Aider). - install.sh + bin/cli.mjs install both (windsurf -> .windsurf/rules, aider -> .aider/skills with a --read hint); generated README index is excluded from copies. - One-line windsurf-install.sh / aider-install.sh wrappers for parity. MCP server (new content type): - mcp/server.mjs — zero-dependency stdio MCP server exposing list_skills, search_skills, get_skill. Published as a second bin (pm-claude-skills-mcp). Logs to stderr; reads bundled skills/ at startup. mcp/README.md documents client config. Also: README hero "See it in action" demo placement (ready to swap in a GIF; recording guide in web/docs-assets/README.md), Works-With table + exports + install docs updated, CHANGELOG Unreleased. package.json files/bin updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.5 KiB
3.5 KiB
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
Anti-Patterns
- Do not weight all evaluation criteria equally — the scorecard must reflect the relative importance of each criterion
- Do not evaluate vendors only on features — security, support, contract terms, and financial stability matter too
- Do not produce a recommendation without explaining why the runner-up lost — this enables future vendor conversations
- Do not skip contract terms to negotiate — identifying leverage points is part of the procurement decision
- Do not recommend a vendor without stating the conditions under which the recommendation would change
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]"