mcpField
C
cowork-vendor-comparison

cowork-vendor-comparison

github.com/onewave-aiProductivity39388 installsUpdated 1w ago
Repository

About cowork-vendor-comparison

A procurement skill for normalizing vendor proposals, calculating term-wide costs, and preparing evidence-based comparisons and negotiations. It is intended for teams evaluating quotes and statements of work.

Key features

  1. 01Extracts pricing, terms, SLAs, and assumptions
  2. 02Normalizes costs across vendors
  3. 03Calculates multi-year total cost of ownership
  4. 04Builds a cited comparison matrix
  5. 05Prepares negotiation points and reference questions

Use cases

  1. 01Compare proposals with different seat counts or scopes
  2. 02Find unpriced items to clarify with vendors
  3. 03Review renewal, exit, and lock-in terms
  4. 04Prepare negotiation asks for shortlisted vendors

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/onewave-ai/claude-skills --skill cowork-vendor-comparison

After installing, type/cowork-vendor-comparisonin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

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

Markdown supported