Conciseness

The prose is lean and free of concepts Claude already knows, but the need/constraints/stakeholders content is stated three times ("Required inputs" section, Phase 1's question list, and Step 1's brief contents), and the 14-item Failure patterns section is long enough to tighten. Not 4: the triple restatement is more than a minor trim — a full section could be merged away.

Actionability

Concrete, specific guidance throughout — dimension weights, "3-year for a 15-30% discount is common", "notice window under 60 days", "success criteria at 30, 90, 180 days", "5-8 candidates... narrow to 2-4 finalists" — with a defined output format. Not 5: no inline worked example or fill-in template (the worked example lives only in the reference file), and a few steps like "Honesty answer the build/buy question" rely on cross-referenced criteria rather than standing alone.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 9-step sequence with real checkpoints — dedicated security review step, scoring conversation that surfaces disagreement, 30/90/180-day success criteria, and the stated-gap rule for unavailable data. Not 5: there is no explicit re-check loop (e.g., revisiting the scorecard when demo or reference-call findings contradict earlier scores); validation is present but implicit in places.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with a single, well-described, one-level-deep reference (references/evaluation-rubric.md, verified to exist and match its description) that appropriately holds the detailed 1-5 anchors and worked example. Not 5: the reference is only linked in a closing "Reference files" section — Phase 4 and Step 6, where the scorecard is actually introduced, do not point to it — a minor navigation gap.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "Evaluate, select, and contract with vendors and SaaS tools", "running an RFP, scoring vendors against criteria, negotiating contracts, planning a switch, or assessing a vendor's risk" — with comprehensive coverage of the domain. Not 4: the action coverage has no minor gaps; every core capability of the skill is named.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Evaluate, select, and contract with vendors and SaaS tools") and when ("Use this skill when comparing alternatives, running an RFP..." plus the explicit trigger list). Uses third person voice throughout, matching the top anchor exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

"vendor evaluation, RFP, vendor selection, build vs buy, SaaS evaluation, vendor scorecard, vendor comparison, contract negotiation, vendor switch, procurement" plus "renewal is coming up" and "a tool isn't meeting expectations" give comprehensive natural-term coverage including synonyms and informal phrasings. Not 4: no common variation a user would naturally say is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is entirely focused on the vendor/procurement niche with distinct, specific triggers (RFP, vendor scorecard, build vs buy, contract negotiation), creating minimal overlap risk with neighboring skills like cost-optimization. Not 4: no closely related skill would plausibly claim these triggers.