本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

codexkit-supplier-evaluation

Evaluate and tier suppliers using a weighted scorecard per SCOR DS Supplier Management practices. Score Quality, Delivery, Cost, Responsiveness, and Sustainability. Classify suppliers as Strategic, Preferred, Approved, or Conditional. Use during vendor reviews or procurement decisions.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md4.9 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml186 B

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Supplier Evaluation Scorecard

When to Use

  • During quarterly or annual supplier performance reviews
  • When selecting vendors for new sourcing decisions
  • When consolidating or rationalizing the supplier base
  • When a supplier's performance triggers a review

Procedure

Step 1 — Define Evaluation Criteria

CriterionWeightMeasurement
Quality30%Defect rate, inspection pass rate, returns
Delivery25%On-time delivery %, lead time variance
Cost20%Price competitiveness, total cost of ownership
Responsiveness15%Communication speed, issue resolution time
Sustainability10%ESG compliance, certifications, carbon footprint

Adjust weights based on industry and strategic priorities.

Step 2 — Score Each Criterion

ScoreLevelDescription
5ExcellentExceeds expectations consistently
4GoodMeets expectations with occasional excellence
3AcceptableMeets minimum standards
2Below AverageFrequent issues, requires monitoring
1UnacceptableConsistent failures, action required

Step 3 — Calculate Weighted Total

Weighted Score = Σ (Score × Weight)

Step 4 — Tier Classification

Weighted ScoreTierRelationship Strategy
4.5–5.0StrategicLong-term partnership, innovation collaboration
3.5–4.4PreferredStable relationship, volume commitment
2.5–3.4ApprovedTransactional, competitive bidding
< 2.5ConditionalImprovement plan required, phase-out risk

Step 5 — Action Plan

For Conditional and low-Approved suppliers:

  1. Issue corrective action request (CAR)
  2. Define improvement targets with timeline
  3. Schedule re-evaluation in 90 days
  4. Identify backup supplier if no improvement

Inputs

InputRequiredFormat
Supplier name and categoryYesText
Performance dataYesMetrics per criterion
Contract/spend dataRecommendedAnnual spend, contract terms
Previous evaluationRecommendedPrior scorecard if available

Output

## Supplier Evaluation — [Supplier Name] — [Period]

### Scorecard

| Criterion | Weight | Score | Weighted |
|-----------|--------|-------|----------|
| Quality | 30% | 4 | 1.20 |
| Delivery | 25% | 3 | 0.75 |
| Cost | 20% | 4 | 0.80 |
| Responsiveness | 15% | 5 | 0.75 |
| Sustainability | 10% | 3 | 0.30 |
| **Total** | **100%** | | **3.80** |

### Tier: PREFERRED (3.80 / 5.0)

### Improvement Areas
1. Delivery: OTD dropped to 88% (target: 95%) — root cause: warehouse capacity
2. Sustainability: No ISO 14001 certification yet — expected Q3

### Action Plan
| Action | Owner | Deadline |
|--------|-------|----------|
| Improve OTD to 95% | Supplier ops team | 90 days |
| Submit ISO 14001 timeline | Supplier quality | 60 days |
| Re-evaluate | Procurement | Q3 |

Definition of Done

  • All criteria scored with evidence
  • Weighted total calculated
  • Tier classification assigned
  • Improvement areas identified for scores ≤ 3
  • Action plan with owners and deadlines for Conditional/low-Approved

Examples

Prompt

Evaluate our packaging supplier FastPack Ltd for Q1.
Quality: 96% pass rate (4/5), Delivery: 88% OTD (3/5), Cost: competitive (4/5),
Responsiveness: excellent (5/5), Sustainability: no ISO 14001 (3/5).
Generate the scorecard and improvement plan.

Quality Criteria

  • Data sources and assumptions are explicitly stated
  • Calculations are reproducible from provided inputs
  • Visualizations or tables have clear labels, units, and time ranges
  • Caveats and confidence levels are documented for estimates

Verification (4C)

CheckQuestion
CorrectnessAre formulas, aggregations, and statistical methods applied correctly?
CompletenessDoes the analysis cover all requested metrics and time ranges?
Context-fitAre the chosen metrics relevant to the business question being answered?
ConsequenceIf this data were used for a decision today, what blind spots remain?

Edge Cases

  • Missing or incomplete data — Document gaps and their potential impact on conclusions. Provide ranges instead of point estimates.
  • Outliers skewing results — Report with and without outliers. Document the decision to include or exclude.
  • Changing data definitions mid-period — Split analysis at the change boundary and note the schema difference.

Changelog

  • v1.0.0 — Initial release

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Design rigorous A/B test plans with hypothesis, sample size calculation, Minimum Detectable Effect (MDE), randomization strategy, and decision rules. Includes guardrail metrics and rollout playbook. Use when planning product experiments, conversion optimization, or data-driven feature decisions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hoavdc/CodexKit252026年10月8日 更新

Review REST and GraphQL API designs for consistency, usability, and best practices. Covers naming conventions, versioning strategy, error format, pagination, authentication patterns, and breaking change detection. Use when reviewing API specs, designing new APIs, or auditing existing endpoints.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hoavdc/CodexKit252026年10月8日 更新

Write Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following the Michael Nygard format. Captures context, options considered, decision rationale, and consequences. Use when making technology choices, framework selections, or any architectural decision that future developers need to understand.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hoavdc/CodexKit252026年10月8日 更新

Assess organizational readiness for financial audits (internal or external). Map assertions to account balances, check evidence completeness, score readiness using a Red/Amber/Green framework, and generate a remediation timeline. Aligned with SOX, IFRS, and GAAP audit standards. Use before scheduled audits or when preparing for first-time compliance.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hoavdc/CodexKit252026年10月8日 更新

Design safe recurring Codex automations with clear prompts, outputs, schedules, and gating rules.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hoavdc/CodexKit252026年10月8日 更新

Refine Product Backlog Items to meet INVEST criteria. Write User Stories with Acceptance Criteria in Given/When/Then format, estimate with Story Points, and flag dependencies. Use before sprint planning when backlog items need grooming. Do not use to prioritize the backlog — that is the Product Owner's decision.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hoavdc/CodexKit252026年10月8日 更新

hoavdc のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する