Agent Skillsmohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills › vendor-evaluation

vendor-evaluation

GitHub

为采购决策创建结构化的供应商评估框架。通过定义权重、评分标准和关键问题,生成加权记分卡与对比分析,最终提供包含风险、谈判条件及备选方案的推荐建议。

exports/openclaw/vendor-evaluation/SKILL.md mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills

Trigger Scenarios

评估供应商 比较不同卖家 执行RFP评分流程 评估软件或服务提供商

Install

npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill vendor-evaluation -g -y
More Options

Non-standard path

npx skills add https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/tree/main/exports/openclaw/vendor-evaluation -g -y

Use without installing

npx skills use mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills@vendor-evaluation

指定 Agent (Claude Code)

npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill vendor-evaluation -a claude-code -g -y

安装 repo 全部 skill

npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --all -g -y

预览 repo 内 skill

npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --list

SKILL.md

Frontmatter
{
    "name": "vendor-evaluation",
    "homepage": "https:\/\/mohitagw15856.github.io\/pm-claude-skills\/skill\/vendor-evaluation.html",
    "metadata": {
        "openclaw": {
            "emoji": "🔩"
        }
    },
    "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

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]"

Version History

  • 54fad50 Current 2026-07-19 12:37

Same Skill Collection

exports/openclaw/360-feedback-template/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/401k-plan-decoder/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/ab-test-planner/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/ab-test-readout/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/accessibility-audit/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/account-plan/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/acquirer-red-team/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/ad-copy/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/aeo-optimizer/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/agenda-or-cancel/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/agent-design-review/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/agent-observability-spec/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/agent-spec/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/ai-ethics-review/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/ai-eval-plan/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/ai-feature-prd/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/ai-product-canvas/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/air-quality/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/altitude-shifter/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/ambiguity-resolver/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/analyst-relations-brief/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/announcement-card/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/api-docs-writer/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/api-test-plan/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/api-versioning-strategy/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/apology-letter/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/architecture-decision-record/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/architecture-diagram/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/archive-strategy/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/assumption-bounty/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/assumption-mapper/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/async-update-format/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/auto-repair-estimate-decoder/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/autopilot-charter/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/benefits-decoder/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/bid-tender-review/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/board-deck-narrative/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/board-minutes/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/board-pre-read/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/bom-cost-review/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/bookkeeping-categorization/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/boolean-search-builder/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/brag-doc/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/brainstorming/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/brief-builder/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/briefing-note/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/budget-builder/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/budget-variance-analysis/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/bug-diagnosis/SKILL.md
exports/openclaw/bug-report/SKILL.md

Metadata

Files
0
Version
471c606
Hash
054f5cae
Indexed
2026-07-19 12:37

- 위키
Copyright © 2011-2026 iteam. Current version is 2.155.2. UTC+08:00, 2026-07-29 09:39
浙ICP备14020137号-1 $방문자$