supplier-scorecard
GitHub构建季度供应商绩效记分卡，基于交付、质量等五维度加权评分，结合趋势分析与纠正措施审计，强制输出升级、培养或退出建议。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill supplier-scorecard -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "supplier-scorecard",
"description": "Build a quarterly supplier performance scorecard with a weighted grade and a clear escalate\/develop\/exit call. Use when asked to review supplier performance, prepare a quarterly business review for a vendor, score a supplier on OTIF and quality, or decide whether to escalate or exit a supplier. Produces a weighted scorecard with trend arrows, per-dimension evidence, corrective-action status, and a recommendation."
}
Supplier Scorecard Skill
A supplier review that ends with "keep monitoring" is a meeting, not a decision. This skill turns delivery, quality, responsiveness, and cost data into a weighted quarterly grade with trend direction — and forces one of three outcomes: escalate, develop, or exit. It also audits whether last quarter's corrective actions actually closed, because a supplier who commits and doesn't deliver is telling you something.
What This Skill Produces
- A weighted performance grade (0–100) across five dimensions with trend arrows vs. prior quarters
- Per-dimension evidence: OTIF %, PPM/defect rate, response metrics, cost behavior
- Corrective-action follow-through audit (committed vs. closed)
- A classification — Preferred / Approved / Conditional / Exit-candidate — and a recommended action path
- Talking points for the supplier business review
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- Supplier & spend — name, category, annual spend, share of category, single/dual-sourced
- Delivery data — OTIF % (on-time in-full) for the quarter, plus 2–3 prior quarters for trend
- Quality data — PPM or defect rate, customer complaints traced to this supplier, any stop-ships
- Responsiveness — quote turnaround, engineering-change response, escalation behavior
- Cost behavior — price changes vs. market/index, cost-reduction commitments delivered
- Open corrective actions — CAPAs/SCARs from prior reviews and their status
If history is missing, score the current quarter and label trends [no baseline — first scored quarter]. Infer reasonable dimension detail from a thin brief and label it [inferred].
Scoring Framework
Default weights (adjust for category — e.g., quality-critical items shift quality to 35%):
| Dimension | Weight | 5 (excellent) | 3 (acceptable) | 1 (failing) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery (OTIF) | 30% | ≥98% | 93–95% | <90% |
| Quality (PPM / defects) | 25% | ≤100 PPM, no escapes | ≤1,000 PPM | >5,000 PPM or a stop-ship |
| Responsiveness | 15% | Same-day acknowledgment, proactive alerts | Meets agreed SLAs | Chased for answers |
| Cost behavior | 15% | Beats index, delivers savings commitments | Tracks index | Above-index increases, missed commitments |
| Corrective-action follow-through | 15% | All closed on time with verified effectiveness | Closed late but closed | Repeat findings, open past due |
Grade = Σ(score × weight) × 20 → 0–100. Bands: ≥85 Preferred · 70–84 Approved · 55–69 Conditional (development plan required) · <55 Exit-candidate.
Trend arrows: ↑ improved ≥5 points vs. prior quarter, → within ±5, ↓ declined ≥5. A ↓ trend in Conditional triggers escalation even if the band hasn't changed yet.
Recommendation logic: score AND trajectory AND strategic dependence. A 60-score sole-source supplier gets a development plan with executive sponsorship; a 60-score supplier with two qualified alternates gets a requalification/exit timeline. Say which case applies.
Output Format
Supplier Scorecard: [supplier] — [quarter]
1. Summary — grade, band, trend, and the recommendation in two sentences.
2. Scorecard — table: Dimension | Weight | Metric this quarter | Prior quarter | Score (1–5) | Trend | Evidence.
3. Corrective-action audit — table: Action | Committed date | Status | Verified effective? Flag any repeat finding explicitly.
4. Cost detail — price moves vs. relevant index, savings pipeline status.
5. Recommendation — Escalate / Develop / Exit (or Maintain for Preferred), with the specific next step, owner, and review date. For Exit-candidates: transition risk, requalification lead time, and interim containment.
6. QBR talking points — 3–5 items: what to recognize, what to demand, what to decide.
Quality Checks
- Every dimension score cites a number or named event, not an impression
- Trend arrows computed against actual prior-quarter data, or labeled as first-quarter baseline
- Corrective-action follow-through scored — commitments without closure pulled the grade down
- Recommendation accounts for sourcing dependence (sole-source vs. alternates available)
- Exit recommendations include transition lead time and interim risk containment
- The review ends in a decision with owner and date — not "continue monitoring"
Anti-Patterns
- Do not let a good price excuse failing OTIF — cheap parts that don't arrive cost more than the savings
- Do not score quality on PPM alone if there was a customer escape or stop-ship — a single escape caps quality at 2
- Do not average the year — score the quarter and show the trend, or improvement and decline both hide
- Do not recommend exit for a sole-source supplier without a qualified alternative and transition plan
- Do not carry the same corrective action across two reviews without escalating — repeat findings are a follow-through failure, not a new item
- Do not soften the band to avoid an awkward QBR — the scorecard is the conversation
Version History
- 54fad50 Current 2026-07-19 13:44
