Cowork vendor comparison
Skill bg-szy/TOP-SKILLS/skills/claude-skills/cowork-vendor-comparison
全球最大的 Claude Code 技能聚合库 · 收录 3900+ 来自 12+ 来源的技能，提供在线搜索与趋势分析看板 / The world's largest Claude Code skill aggregation hub — 3900+ skills from 12+ sources with online search and trend dashboard
npx -y skills add bg-szy/TOP-SKILLS --skill cowork-vendor-comparisonAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 4 stars4 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Drop a folder of vendor quotes, proposals, and SOWs on Cowork -- normalizes them into one comparison matrix, computes true total cost of ownership, surfaces the terms each vendor buried, and arms you with negotiation leverage points and reference-check questions.
SKILL.md
3.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
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
- 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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. - 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