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.
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill vendor-evaluation --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Vendor Evaluation?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/mohitagw15856-vendor-evaluation-pm-claude-skills)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
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."
homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/vendor-evaluation.html
metadata:
{
"openclaw": { "emoji": "🔩" }
}
---
# 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]"
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!