Vendor EvaluationCAUTION

1255 professional Agent Skills for Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor & Codex — PRDs, postmortems, leases, medical bills, layoffs, go-bags, new countries. Plain markdown, MIT, in Anthropic's plugin directory. Plus a typed decision layer: which skill, is it safe, ship or slip. Free in-browser or npx pm-

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
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]"

CAUTIONgrade B · trust 89/100 Install with care. The audit found things worth knowing before you trust its output.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

none-observed

Shell

none-observed

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (5)

templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/assumption-mapper/SKILL.md

templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/discovery-interview-guide/SKILL.md

templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/job-story-mapper/SKILL.md

templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/user-interview-synthesis/SKILL.md

templates/pm-launch-agent/skills/content-calendar/SKILL.md

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.