vendor-evaluation
$
npx mdskill add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/vendor-evaluationProduces a structured vendor evaluation framework — from defining criteria through to a scored comparison and recommendation.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/vendor-evaluationView on GitHub ↗
--- 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]"
More from mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
- 360-feedback-templateDesign a 360-degree feedback survey or write a structured 360 feedback report. Use when asked to build a 360 feedback process, write 360 feedback for a colleague, design a feedback survey, or produce a feedback report. Produces either a complete survey instrument with rating scales and open-ended questions, or a structured narrative feedback report with themes, strengths, and development areas.
- ab-test-plannerDesign statistically rigorous A/B tests for product features, UI changes, onboarding flows, and pricing experiments. Use when asked to set up an experiment, design an A/B test, calculate sample size, or interpret test results. Produces a complete test plan with hypothesis, variant definitions, sample size, duration estimate, guardrail metrics, and a results interpretation guide.
- accessibility-auditGenerate a WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit checklist and remediation suggestions for any UI or design. Use when asked to audit for accessibility, check WCAG compliance, review a design for a11y issues, or create an accessibility remediation plan. Produces a prioritised checklist with pass/fail assessments and specific fixes.
- account-planBuild a structured account plan for any key customer or target account. Use when asked to create an account plan, key account strategy, strategic account review, or territory plan. Produces a complete account plan with relationship map, growth opportunities, risks, and 90-day action plan.
- aeo-optimizerOptimize an article for Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) — restructuring content so AI engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Claude can extract, quote, and cite it. Rewrites headings as questions, drops 50-80 word answer capsules, audits paragraph length, and flags trust signals. Use when asked to AEO-optimize, make content AI-readable, improve AI citation chances, or adapt an article for answer engines.
- ai-ethics-reviewConduct an ethical review of an AI or ML feature, model, or product. Use when asked to run an AI ethics review, assess AI risks, audit a model for bias, or produce an AI impact assessment. Produces a structured ethics review covering fairness, transparency, privacy, safety, accountability, and societal impact with prioritised mitigations.
- ai-product-canvasStructure AI and ML product decisions with the rigour of any product decision. Use when building AI-powered features, evaluating LLM integrations, designing AI products, or assessing AI readiness. Produces a complete AI product canvas covering problem definition, model approach, data requirements, evaluation framework, UX design, responsible AI checklist, and launch monitoring plan.
- ambiguity-resolverStructure vague opportunities and unclear briefs into actionable one-page problem statements. Use when asked to clarify a vague brief, frame an undefined problem, make sense of an unclear opportunity, or when the user says 'we need to figure out what to do about X' or 'I've been asked to look into Y'. Produces a structured problem brief with reframed questions, scoped boundaries, and a minimum viable research plan.
- api-docs-writerWrite clear, developer-facing API documentation. Use when asked to document an API endpoint, write API reference docs, create a developer guide, or turn a raw spec/Postman collection into documentation. Produces endpoint documentation with descriptions, parameters, request/response examples, and error codes.
- api-versioning-strategyWrite an API versioning strategy document for a service or API platform. Use when asked to define versioning policy, plan API deprecation, classify breaking changes, or document version lifecycle. Produces a complete versioning strategy with breaking-change classification table, deprecation timeline, migration guide template, and client communication template.