rfp-responder

Use when an RFP, RFI, RFQ, security questionnaire, vendor questionnaire, or proposal request arrives and the team needs a structured response — parsing multi-section buyer-dictated requirements (MANDATORY vs WEIGHTED vs NICE-TO-HAVE), building a Shipley-method proof-point matrix mapping each requirement to a verifiable proof point, articulating 3-5 win-themes that ladder up across requirements, and producing a Shipley-derived winrate estimate that informs a bid / no-bid / partner-bid recommendation. For Bid Managers, Proposal Leads, Directors of Sales, and Sales Engineers at the response-strategy moment. Surfaces GAP requirements explicitly — never invents claims. NOT free-form proposal narrative authoring, NOT contract redline, NOT marketing collateral.

Quality

89%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

—

The risk profile of this skill

Quality

Content

78%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A strong, well-structured body with executable commands, clear sequencing, and excellent file-based progressive disclosure. The main weakness is conciseness: the skill/non-skill boundary is stated twice and the forcing-question library is token-heavy.

Suggestions

Consolidate the 'Do not use for' and 'Distinct from' sections into a single boundary block to remove the duplicated five-skill list.

Tighten the forcing-question library — keep the questions and the one-line recommended answer, but move the canon citations/quotes into references/shipley_method_canon.md rather than inlining all seven.

Add an explicit validate→fix→retry loop (e.g., re-run rfp_parser.py if mandatory disqualifiers are caught late, or re-score fit after closing a GAP) to lift workflow clarity to the top anchor.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient specialized methodology with no basic-concept padding, but the boundary list is duplicated between 'Do not use for' and 'Distinct from' (same five skills), and the 7-question forcing library carries full recommended-answer plus canon-quote text that could be trimmed.	3 / 5
Actionability	Copy-paste-ready bash commands for each script ('python scripts/rfp_parser.py --input rfp.md --output json > parsed.json', etc.) with described outputs and --help/--sample covering input formats.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Five clearly sequenced steps with explicit gates (GAP hard rule, theme<2 flag, no-bid <20% threshold) and a pre-flight forcing-question checklist, but no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop for error recovery.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Clear overview with one-level-deep, well-signaled references to real bundle files (three scripts, three references, one asset), all of which exist, organized for easy navigation.	5 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

An exemplary description: concrete actions, natural trigger terms, explicit what-and-when guidance, and clear negative boundaries that prevent mis-triggering. No verbosity, no over-claims, third-person imperative form consistent with the reference good examples.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple specific concrete actions — 'parsing multi-section buyer-dictated requirements (MANDATORY vs WEIGHTED vs NICE-TO-HAVE)', 'building a Shipley-method proof-point matrix', 'articulating 3-5 win-themes', 'winrate estimate', 'bid / no-bid / partner-bid recommendation' — with comprehensive coverage and no vague filler.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (parse, matrix, win-themes, winrate, bid recommendation) and when ('Use when an RFP... arrives and the team needs a structured response') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Comprehensive natural terms users would actually say — 'RFP, RFI, RFQ, security questionnaire, vendor questionnaire, or proposal request' — covering synonyms and variants a buyer-facing team uses.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Clear niche with explicit negative boundaries — 'NOT free-form proposal narrative authoring, NOT contract redline, NOT marketing collateral' — minimizing overlap with adjacent skills.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Path: commercial/skills/rfp-responder/SKILL.md
Commit: 19392f7

Reviewed: ~10 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.