SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BA vendor-evaluation

Evaluate, select, and contract with vendors and SaaS tools. Use this skill when comparing alternatives, running an RFP, scoring vendors against criteria, negotiating contracts, planning a switch, or assessing a vendor's risk. Triggers on vendor evaluation, RFP, vendor selection, build vs buy, SaaS evaluation, vendor scorecard, vendor comparison, contract negotiation, vendor switch, procurement. Also triggers when a renewal is coming up or when a tool isn't meeting expectations.

rampstackco/claude-skills Agent Skills author: rampstackco 3 files body ≈ 2 679 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 9 h ago

Evaluate, select, and contract with vendors and SaaS tools.

As a process A 81/100 · Runs to the end — weak spots: running it twice, progress reporting

AnalyzerProcurementSales and CRMtype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
B
93/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
99
Quality 40%
85
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
A
81/100
Runs to the end
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
Failures and branches w 10
50
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: vendor-evaluation (rampstackco/claude-skills)

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 1

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Medium and low: 1
    • low Risky intent intent-offensive-security SKILL.md:108
      Offensive-security / dual-use content (legitimate for authorised testing; review intended use)
      **Security and compliance (10%):** SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, etc., as applicable. Data residency. Encryption at rest and in transit. Access controls and audit logs. Penetration test results (ask). Subp

    Files scanned: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "catalog_summary"
    • note frontmatter-key unknown frontmatter key "display_order"

    Process rating: all ten parameters 81/100

    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 85Steps. 95 steps, 3 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2679 tokens

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 482: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 24 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 95 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 85.