Delegate independent tasks to specialized agents working concurrently with isolated context.
AI Vendor Evaluation
ai-vendor-evaluation
Comprehensive framework for evaluating AI vendors and solutions to avoid costly mistakes. Use this skill when assessing AI vendor proposals, conducting due diligence, evaluating contracts, comparing vendors, or making build-vs-buy decisions. Helps identify red flags, assess pricing models, evalua...
SKILL.md
Full skill instructions
AI Vendor Evaluation
Version 1.0 | October 2025 | Based on $1.2M average AI spend analysis
Overview
This skill provides a systematic framework for evaluating AI vendors and solutions to avoid the costly mistakes that plague 95% of AI projects. Use when conducting vendor due diligence, evaluating proposals, negotiating contracts, or making strategic AI purchasing decisions.
Key capabilities:
- Structured evaluation criteria for AI vendors
- Red flag identification in proposals and demos
- Pricing model analysis and fair market rates
- Technical capability assessment
- Contract term evaluation
- Build vs buy decision framework
Quick Decision Tree
Start here to determine which references to read:
What stage are you in?
├─ Early exploration (multiple vendors being considered)
│ └─ Read: evaluation-criteria.md, use-case-fit.md
│ Use: scorecard-template.xlsx
│
├─ Evaluating specific proposal or demo
│ └─ Read: red-flags.md, technical-assessment.md
│ Check: pricing-models.md for pricing reasonableness
│
├─ Contract negotiation
│ └─ Read: contract-checklist.md, pricing-models.md
│ Reference: red-flags.md for problematic terms
│
├─ Build vs Buy decision
│ └─ Read: build-vs-buy.md, use-case-fit.md
│ Consider: Total cost of ownership from pricing-models.md
│
└─ Post-purchase review or audit
└─ Read: evaluation-criteria.md, technical-assessment.md
Assess: Whether vendor is delivering on promises
When to Use This Skill
Trigger scenarios:
- "Help me evaluate this AI vendor proposal"
- "What should I look for in AI vendor demos?"
- "Is this pricing reasonable for an AI solution?"
- "Should we build or buy this AI capability?"
- "What questions should I ask this AI vendor?"
- "Help me compare these AI vendors"
- "Review this AI contract for red flags"
- "Conduct due diligence on this AI company"
Core Evaluation Framework
Phase 1: Initial Screening
Goal: Eliminate obviously problematic vendors before deep evaluation
Key questions:
- Does the vendor have relevant domain experience?
- Are there verifiable customer references?
- Is the technology approach sound?
- Are pricing and terms transparent?
Read: references/red-flags.md for disqualifying signals
Read: references/use-case-fit.md for domain fit assessment
Phase 2: Deep Evaluation
Goal: Assess vendor capabilities systematically across all dimensions
Evaluation dimensions:
- Technical capability - Can they actually deliver?
- Business viability - Will they still exist in 2 years?
- Pricing fairness - Are costs reasonable for value delivered?
- Implementation risk - How likely is successful deployment?
- Contract terms - Are legal terms acceptable?
Read: references/evaluation-criteria.md for comprehensive framework
Read: references/technical-assessment.md for technical evaluation
Read: references/pricing-models.md for pricing analysis
Use: assets/scorecard-template.xlsx to score vendors systematically
Phase 3: Contract Negotiation
Goal: Secure favorable terms and avoid costly traps
Critical areas:
- Performance guarantees and SLAs
- Data ownership and usage rights
- Pricing structure and escalation terms
- Exit clauses and data portability
- Liability and indemnification
Read: references/contract-checklist.md for essential terms
Reference: references/red-flags.md for problematic contract patterns
Common Vendor Patterns
The Overpromiser
Characteristics: Claims to solve everything, vague on technical details, aggressive sales tactics
Red flag: "Our AI can handle any use case"
Response: Demand specific technical explanations and verifiable references
The Feature Dumper
Characteristics: Long feature lists, complex pricing, unclear core value proposition
Red flag: Can't explain what problem they actually solve
Response: Force clarity on primary use case and success metrics
The Consultant in Disguise
Characteristics: Software license + mandatory professional services
Red flag: Professional services cost more than software
Response: Assess true cost of ownership, consider if you're buying software or consulting
The Model Wrapper
Characteristics: Thin layer over OpenAI/Anthropic APIs with high markup
Red flag: No proprietary technology, just API access + UI
Response: Calculate cost of building similar solution in-house
Full pattern library: See references/red-flags.md
Build vs Buy Decision Framework
When to read this section: Before committing to vendor evaluation, determine if building in-house is better option.
Key factors:
- Capability availability - Does suitable vendor solution exist?
- Time to value - Buy: weeks-months, Build: months-years
- Total cost - Consider 3-year TCO for both options
- Strategic importance - Core competency? Build. Commodity? Buy.
- Team capability - Do you have talent to build and maintain?
Read: references/build-vs-buy.md for detailed decision framework
Using the Scorecard Template
The vendor scorecard enables structured comparison across vendors.
To use:
- Open
assets/scorecard-template.xlsx - List vendors to compare (up to 5)
- Score each vendor on evaluation criteria (1-5 scale)
- Review weighted scores and vendor comparison chart
- Document decision rationale
Customization: Adjust weights based on priorities for your specific use case.
Reference Documents
references/evaluation-criteria.md
Comprehensive scoring framework across all vendor evaluation dimensions. Includes specific questions to ask, what constitutes good/bad answers, and how to weight criteria for different use cases.
Use when: Conducting systematic vendor evaluation
references/red-flags.md
Catalog of warning signs indicating problematic vendors. Organized by category: technical red flags, business red flags, pricing red flags, contract red flags, and behavioral red flags.
Use when: Initial vendor screening or reviewing proposals
references/pricing-models.md
Guide to AI vendor pricing models (per-seat, usage-based, platform fees, etc.), fair market rates, what drives costs, and how to negotiate. Includes pricing red flags and total cost of ownership analysis.
Use when: Evaluating vendor pricing or negotiating contracts
references/technical-assessment.md
Framework for assessing technical capabilities: architecture review, model evaluation, integration complexity, scalability, security, and data handling. Includes specific technical questions to ask.
Use when: Deep technical evaluation of vendor capabilities
references/contract-checklist.md
Essential contract terms for AI vendor agreements: performance guarantees, data rights, pricing protection, exit terms, liability, and support commitments. Includes negotiation guidance.
Use when: Contract review or negotiation
references/use-case-fit.md
Framework for assessing whether vendor solution actually fits your use case. Includes questions to ask yourself, questions to ask vendor, and warning signs of poor fit.
Use when: Initial vendor screening or use case definition
references/build-vs-buy.md
Decision framework for whether to build AI capability in-house vs purchasing vendor solution. Includes total cost analysis, capability assessment, and strategic considerations.
Use when: Before committing to vendor evaluation process
Assets
assets/scorecard-template.xlsx
Structured spreadsheet for vendor comparison with:
- Evaluation criteria organized by category
- Scoring system (1-5 scale) with descriptions
- Weighted scoring based on priorities
- Vendor comparison charts
- Decision documentation section
Customize: Adjust criteria weights and add company-specific requirements
More Other skills
brand-guidelines
Applies Anthropic's official brand colors and typography to any sort of artifact that may benefit from having Anthropic's look-and-feel. Use it when brand colors or style guidelines, visual formatting, or company design standards apply.
theme-factory
Toolkit for styling artifacts with a theme. These artifacts can be slides, docs, reportings, HTML landing pages, etc. There are 10 pre-set themes with colors/fonts that you can apply to any artifact that has been creating, or can generate a new theme on-the-fly.
internal-comms
A set of resources to help me write all kinds of internal communications, using the formats that my company likes to use. Claude should use this skill whenever asked to write some sort of internal communications (status reports, leadership updates, 3P updates, company newsletters, FAQs, incident reports, project updates, etc.).
Fundamental design principles for writing maintainable, testable Python code.
responsive-design
Modern responsive layouts using container queries, fluid typography, CSS Grid, and mobile-first strategies.
Generate Playwright tests from scenarios using interactive browser exploration and validation.
Automated website exploration and test case generation using Playwright.
Modern React state management with Redux Toolkit, Zustand, Jotai, and React Query for every state category.
gdpr-data-handling
GDPR-compliant data handling with consent management, data subject rights, and privacy controls.
Python error handling patterns including input validation, exception hierarchies, and partial failure handling. Use when implementing validation logic, designing exception strategies, handling batch processing failures, or building robust APIs.
refactor-plan
Detailed multi-file refactor planning with safety checks and rollback guidance.
