vendor-evaluation

Category: General Risk: Unknown ★ 4.6 · Rating 4.6/5 (1014) mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills MIT

Rating is derived from the repo's GitHub stars and shown for reference.


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

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]"