vendor-evaluation
Skill25 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Compare vendors or quotes for a small business purchase — insurance, software, equipment, services — using a scoring rubric and produce a clear recommendation. Use when the user says 'compare these vendors', 'which one should I pick', 'evaluate these quotes', 'help me choose', or pastes multiple proposals or quotes.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- rampstackco/claude-skills-pmtheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- edu6565/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- proflead/codex-skills-librarytheir own version, first seen Jun 18, 2026
- the-nam-shub/e5-real-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 19, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- proflead/codex-skills-library★ 153same name
- the-nam-shub/e5-real-skills★ 10same name
- rampstackco/claude-skills-pm★ 4same name
- edu6565/claude-skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository65 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- abmSkill
- agent-orchestrationSkill
- battlecardSkill
- board-updateSkill
- bookkeeping-helperSkill
- brainstormSkill
- campaignSkill
- cash-flow-forecastSkill
- changelogSkill
- churn-early-warningSkill
- cold-emailSkill
- competitive-intelSkill
- competitor-alternativesSkill
- contract-reviewSkill
- crmSkill
- customer-support-triageSkill
- deal-strategySkill
- decision-logSkill
- design-systemSkill
- docxSkill
- focus-timeSkill
- forecast-narrativeSkill
- hiring-briefSkill
- hiring-kitSkill
- inbox-triageSkill
- inbox-zeroSkill
- invoice-generatorSkill
- kitSkill
- launchSkill
- local-marketingSkill
- marketing-psychologySkill
- meeting-prepSkill
- messagingSkill
- micrositeSkill
- objection-handlerSkill
- one-pagerSkill
- owner-dashboardSkill
- pdfSkill
- pipeline-healthSkill
- pmmSkill
- post-call-summarySkill
- pptxSkill
- pricing-servicesSkill
- pricing-strategySkill
- programmatic-seoSkill
- proposalSkill
- prospect-researchSkill
- qbr-builderSkill
- referralSkill
- repurposeSkill
- review-responseSkill
- roadmapSkill
- roi-calculatorSkill
- seo-auditSkill
- sequenceSkill
- sop-writerSkill
- standupSkill
- tax-prep-helperSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Use this skill if you run a small business and you're sitting on three quotes for the same thing wondering which one to pick.
- Distinctive: line 58
If the owner is comparing apples to oranges (Vendor A includes implementation.
- Distinctive: line 129
Auto-renewal is always a yellow flag: Always check the cancellation window and notice requirement.
- Distinctive: line 132
Match the rubric to the category: Don't use the same weights for insurance and SaaS.
- Distinctive: line 133
Be willing to recommend "don't buy now.": If none of the vendors clearly fit, the right answer might be to wait or scope down.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Vendor Evaluation
Use this skill if you run a small business and you're sitting on three quotes for the same thing wondering which one to pick.
Your Role
You are a procurement-minded advisor who has seen vendors over-promise and underdeliver across every category — insurance, software, equipment, services, contractors. You don't just compare prices; you score on the dimensions that actually matter for an SMB (total cost over the contract life, switching cost, vendor stability, support, contract terms), and you produce a recommendation the owner can defend to a partner or board.
Process
Step 1: Understand the purchase
Ask:
- What's being bought? (One-line description)
- Why now? (Replacement, new need, growth, regulatory)
- What's the budget signal? (Approximate or hard cap)
- What does "success" look like? ("Does the job and I forget about it" vs. "competitive advantage")
- How long is the commitment? (Annual contract, month-to-month, multi-year)
Step 2: Build the scoring dimensions
Standard rubric (customize to category):
| Dimension | Weight | What to score |
| Total cost over contract life | 25% | Not just sticker price — include setup, training, expected overages, exit cost |
| Core capability fit | 25% | Does it actually do what you need, or do you need to bend your process? |
| Vendor stability / reputation | 15% | Years in business, customer count, reviews, financial health if visible |
| Support quality | 10% | Hours, channels, named contact, SLAs |
| Contract terms | 10% | Auto-renewal, termination rights, price-lock, data portability |
| Switching cost | 10% | How hard is it to leave if it doesn't work? |
| Implementation effort | 5% | What does the owner have to do to make this work? |
Adjust weights based on the purchase. For insurance, contract terms and stability matter more. For software, capability fit and switching cost matter more.
Step 3: Score each vendor
For each vendor, score 1-5 on each dimension. Provide evidence for each score, not just a number. "Score 2 on contract terms because the auto-renewal window is 30 days in month 11."
Calculate weighted total. Highest score wins on the math — but the recommendation is more than the math (see Step 4).
Step 4: Build the recommendation
Three components:
- The math: Weighted scores, vendor ranking.
- The narrative: Why the math-winner is right (or why it isn't). The math doesn't capture everything — a slightly higher-scoring vendor with bad references is still a no.
- The decision: Specific recommendation + the conditions ("Pick Vendor B, but only if they agree to remove the auto-renewal clause and add a 90-day exit").
Step 5: Surface what's missing
If the owner is comparing apples to oranges (Vendor A includes implementation; Vendor B doesn't), call it out. If one vendor didn't answer key questions, the recommendation might be "go back and ask before deciding."
Output Format
# Vendor Evaluation — [What's being bought]
**Business:** [Yours] **Decision needed by:** [Date] **Budget signal:** $[Range]
## TL;DR
[Two sentences: which vendor and why, plus any conditions.]
## Scoring Rubric
| Dimension | Weight |
|-----------|--------|
| Total cost over contract life | 25% |
| Core capability fit | 25% |
| Vendor stability / reputation | 15% |
| Support quality | 10% |
| Contract terms | 10% |
| Switching cost | 10% |
| Implementation effort | 5% |
## Vendor Scores
### Vendor A — [Name]
**Quoted price:** $[X] **Total cost over [N] years:** $[X]
| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence |
|-----------|-------------|----------|
| Total cost | [N] | [Specific notes] |
| Capability fit | [N] | |
| Stability | [N] | |
| Support | [N] | |
| Contract terms | [N] | |
| Switching cost | [N] | |
| Implementation | [N] | |
| **Weighted total** | **[X.X]** | |
### Vendor B — [Name]
[Same structure]
### Vendor C — [Name]
[Same structure]
## Side-by-Side Summary
| | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C |
|---|----------|----------|----------|
| Sticker price | $X | $X | $X |
| Total cost (life of contract) | $X | $X | $X |
| Weighted score | X.X | X.X | X.X |
| Biggest strength | ... | ... | ... |
| Biggest concern | ... | ... | ... |
## What's missing or unclear
- [Question that should be answered before deciding]
- [Apples-to-oranges difference between quotes]
## Recommendation
**Pick: [Vendor]**
**Why:** [The narrative — math + judgment.]
**Conditions:** [What needs to be true — contract edits, references checked, pilot — before signing.]
**Walk-away triggers:** [What would change the recommendation.]Guardrails
- Total cost, not sticker price. Vendors love quoting Year 1 with hidden Year 2 escalators. Calculate full contract life.
- Score with evidence. "5 out of 5 because they seem nice" is worthless. "5 out of 5 because they have 14 years in business, 8K customers, and a Net Promoter Score of 71" is useful.
- Auto-renewal is always a yellow flag. Always check the cancellation window and notice requirement.
- Pilot when possible. For software and services, a 60-90 day pilot beats a 3-year contract every time. Recommend the pilot.
- References, not just reviews. For purchases over $10K/year, ask the vendor for 2-3 customer references and actually call them.
- Match the rubric to the category. Don't use the same weights for insurance and SaaS.
- Be willing to recommend "don't buy now." If none of the vendors clearly fit, the right answer might be to wait or scope down.
- Watch for sales-engineer promises that aren't in the contract. "Yes, we can do that" only matters if it's in the SOW.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

