Claude Skill

cowork-vendor-comparison

Drop a folder of vendor quotes, proposals, and SOWs on Cowork -- normalizes them into one comparison matrix, computes true total cost of ownership, surfaces the terms each vendor buried, and arms you with negotiation leverage points and reference-check questions.

LLM Mart · 0 points · 0 views 0 listing impressions 0 install-command copies
Virus-scanned Reviewed automatically before listing.

Full trust report

Download onewave-ai-claude-skills-cowork-vendor-comparison-97b5147.zip · 1 KB
Part of onewave-ai/claude-skills — 67 skills

Install

skills CLI npx skills add https://github.com/OneWave-AI/claude-skills/tree/main/cowork-vendor-comparison
Claude Code claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install onewave-ai-claude-skills@llmmart
Git git clone https://github.com/OneWave-AI/claude-skills.git

The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole onewave-ai/claude-skills collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.

Skill manifest

Cowork Vendor Comparison

Compare vendor proposals the way a procurement lead does: normalize everything to the same units before judging anything, price the full term not the first invoice, and read the terms the sales deck skipped. Input: a folder of quotes/proposals/SOWs (PDF, .docx, .xlsx) and, ideally, one sentence on what the purchase needs to accomplish.

Workflow

  1. Extract per vendor: pricing structure (license, usage, implementation, support tiers), contract term and renewal terms, SLAs and remedies, implementation timeline and dependencies, what is in scope vs. priced as add-on, exit terms (data export, termination fees), and every assumption the proposal states.
  2. Normalize. Convert all pricing to a common basis -- same seat count, same usage volume, same term. Where a proposal is silent on something another proposal prices (training, integrations, overage rates), mark it UNPRICED -- ask, never zero. Unpriced is not free.
  3. Compute TCO over the realistic term (default 3 years): year-one cost, steady-state annual cost, escalators applied, one-time costs amortized, and the exit cost. Show the math per vendor.
  4. Matrix. Output vendor-comparison.md: side-by-side table of cost, capability fit against the stated need, SLA strength, implementation risk, and contract flexibility -- each cell citing the source document and page. Follow with a plain-English paragraph per vendor: the honest case for and against.
  5. Negotiation prep. For the top 2 vendors: leverage points (their weaknesses vs. the rival's strengths, end-of-quarter timing, multi-year vs. flexibility trades), the specific asks worth making (cap the escalator, free implementation, opt-out at 12 months), and 5 reference-check questions targeting each vendor's specific risk areas.

Rules

  • Never judge from unnormalized numbers. A lower sticker with usage pricing can be the expensive option.
  • Every cell in the matrix traces to a document and page. "Vendor B has better support" without a citation is vibes.
  • Silence is a finding: what a proposal does not say (no uptime SLA, no data-export clause) goes in the matrix as prominently as what it says.
  • Do not manufacture a winner. If the vendors genuinely split on cost vs. capability, present the trade and the decision criteria, and say which way the stated need leans.
  • Flag lock-in explicitly: proprietary data formats, migration fees, auto-renewals with long notice windows.
  • If proposals answer different scopes (one quoted 50 seats, one quoted 200), lead with that mismatch and request aligned quotes before deep comparison.

Quick Commands

  • "Compare [folder]" -- full workflow
  • "TCO only" -- steps 1-3
  • "What's unpriced?" -- the ask-list of gaps per vendor
  • "Prep me to negotiate with [vendor]" -- step 5 for one vendor
Files (claude-skills)
  • SKILL.md 3.1 KB
    ---
    name: cowork-vendor-comparison
    description: Drop a folder of vendor quotes, proposals, and SOWs on Cowork -- normalizes them into one comparison matrix, computes true total cost of ownership, surfaces the terms each vendor buried, and arms you with negotiation leverage points and reference-check questions.
    tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Bash, WebSearch
    model: inherit
    ---
    
    # Cowork Vendor Comparison
    
    Compare vendor proposals the way a procurement lead does: normalize everything to the same units before judging anything, price the full term not the first invoice, and read the terms the sales deck skipped. Input: a folder of quotes/proposals/SOWs (PDF, .docx, .xlsx) and, ideally, one sentence on what the purchase needs to accomplish.
    
    ## Workflow
    
    1. **Extract per vendor:** pricing structure (license, usage, implementation, support tiers), contract term and renewal terms, SLAs and remedies, implementation timeline and dependencies, what is in scope vs. priced as add-on, exit terms (data export, termination fees), and every assumption the proposal states.
    2. **Normalize.** Convert all pricing to a common basis -- same seat count, same usage volume, same term. Where a proposal is silent on something another proposal prices (training, integrations, overage rates), mark it `UNPRICED -- ask`, never zero. Unpriced is not free.
    3. **Compute TCO** over the realistic term (default 3 years): year-one cost, steady-state annual cost, escalators applied, one-time costs amortized, and the exit cost. Show the math per vendor.
    4. **Matrix.** Output `vendor-comparison.md`: side-by-side table of cost, capability fit against the stated need, SLA strength, implementation risk, and contract flexibility -- each cell citing the source document and page. Follow with a plain-English paragraph per vendor: the honest case for and against.
    5. **Negotiation prep.** For the top 2 vendors: leverage points (their weaknesses vs. the rival's strengths, end-of-quarter timing, multi-year vs. flexibility trades), the specific asks worth making (cap the escalator, free implementation, opt-out at 12 months), and 5 reference-check questions targeting each vendor's specific risk areas.
    
    ## Rules
    
    - Never judge from unnormalized numbers. A lower sticker with usage pricing can be the expensive option.
    - Every cell in the matrix traces to a document and page. "Vendor B has better support" without a citation is vibes.
    - Silence is a finding: what a proposal does not say (no uptime SLA, no data-export clause) goes in the matrix as prominently as what it says.
    - Do not manufacture a winner. If the vendors genuinely split on cost vs. capability, present the trade and the decision criteria, and say which way the stated need leans.
    - Flag lock-in explicitly: proprietary data formats, migration fees, auto-renewals with long notice windows.
    - If proposals answer different scopes (one quoted 50 seats, one quoted 200), lead with that mismatch and request aligned quotes before deep comparison.
    
    ## Quick Commands
    
    - "Compare [folder]" -- full workflow
    - "TCO only" -- steps 1-3
    - "What's unpriced?" -- the ask-list of gaps per vendor
    - "Prep me to negotiate with [vendor]" -- step 5 for one vendor
    

Comments (0)

Sign in to join the conversation.

No comments yet.

Reviews (0)

No reviews yet.

Related