agentleFS
spiralcrew-ouspiralcrew-ou/profilespider-agent-skills/supplier-qualification/SKILL.md

supplier-qualification

Skill9 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Assesses potential suppliers against defined commercial, operational, and compliance requirements. Use when the user provides supplier records plus sourcing requirements and wants a consistent shortlist with strengths and risks.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use evidence from the records.

    line 51

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Supplier Qualification

Purpose

Assess potential suppliers against defined commercial, operational, and compliance requirements.

When to use this skill

  • Shortlisting suppliers from a sourcing long-list
  • Comparing vendors against the same requirements
  • Surfacing compliance or location risks early
  • Documenting why a supplier is in or out

When not to use this skill

  • You have no defined requirements or risk criteria
  • You need audited financials the records do not contain
  • Final selection requires legal or compliance sign-off this cannot replace

Required inputs

  • Supplier records
  • Product or service requirements
  • Risk and compliance criteria

Optional inputs

  • Location requirements
  • Capacity or volume needs
  • Certifications required
  • Budget or pricing band

Rules

  1. Score only against the supplied requirements.
  2. Use evidence from the records; do not assume certifications or capacity.
  3. Distinguish stated facts from inferences.
  4. Flag compliance-relevant gaps explicitly.
  5. Apply criteria consistently to every supplier.

Process

  1. Parse requirements and risk criteria.
  2. Evaluate each supplier against them.
  3. Identify strengths and risks with evidence.
  4. Score fit from 0 to 100.
  5. List missing information and recommend a next step.

Output format

Return one record per supplier with the following fields:

  • supplier_fit_score
  • strengths
  • risks
  • missing_information
  • recommended_next_step

Validation

  • Confirm risks and strengths cite record evidence.
  • Confirm compliance gaps are surfaced, not assumed away.
  • Confirm scores are comparable across suppliers.

Limitations

  • A record-based screen is not due diligence; verify before contracting.
  • Certifications listed in data should be independently confirmed.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.