agentsclimarketplace

Mfg supplier scorecard

Skill charlieviettq/awesome-agent-skill/.cursor/skills/asgard-ai-platform/mfg-supplier-scorecard

Evaluate and manage suppliers using weighted scorecards across quality, delivery, price, and service dimensions. Use this skill when the user needs to assess supplier performance, compare vendors for selection, design a supplier rating system, or manage supplier development — even if they say 'which supplier should we choose', 'rate our vendors', 'this supplier keeps delivering late', or 'build a vendor evaluation system'.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add charlieviettq/awesome-agent-skill --skill mfg-supplier-scorecard

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 24 stars24 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.

SKILL.md

5.2 KB, ~1.2k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Supplier Scorecard

Framework

IRON LAW: Evaluate on QCDS (Quality, Cost, Delivery, Service) — Not Just Price

The cheapest supplier who delivers defective parts late with no support
is the most expensive supplier. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) includes:
purchase price + incoming inspection + rework + downtime from defects +
expediting fees + management overhead.

NEVER select suppliers on price alone.

Four Evaluation Dimensions (QCDS)

DimensionWeight (typical)KPIs
Quality30-40%Defect rate (PPM), incoming inspection pass rate, certifications (ISO 9001), corrective action responsiveness
Cost20-30%Unit price, total cost of ownership, price stability, payment terms
Delivery20-30%On-time delivery rate, lead time, lead time variability, flexibility for rush orders
Service10-20%Responsiveness, communication quality, technical support, willingness to collaborate on improvements

Scoring Method

  1. Define KPIs per dimension (2-3 per dimension)
  2. Set weights (must sum to 100%)
  3. Score each KPI: 1-5 scale with clear definitions:
    • 5 = Excellent (top 10% of suppliers)
    • 4 = Good (meets all requirements consistently)
    • 3 = Acceptable (meets most requirements)
    • 2 = Below expectations (frequent issues)
    • 1 = Unacceptable (critical problems)
  4. Calculate weighted total
  5. Classify: A (>4.0), B (3.0-4.0), C (2.0-3.0), D (<2.0)

Supplier Classification & Actions

GradeScoreStrategy
A>4.0Preferred supplier, increase business, joint development
B3.0-4.0Approved supplier, maintain, targeted improvement
C2.0-3.0Conditional, improvement plan required within 90 days
D<2.0Phase out, begin alternative sourcing immediately

Risk Assessment

Risk FactorQuestionMitigation
Single sourceIs this supplier the only source for a critical component?Develop backup supplier
GeographicIs the supplier in a region prone to disruption?Dual-source across regions
FinancialIs the supplier financially stable?Monitor credit, require financial disclosures
CapacityCan the supplier scale with our growth?Capacity commitment agreements
IPDoes the supplier have access to our proprietary designs?NDA + IP clauses in contract

Supplier Development Program (SDP)

For C-grade suppliers worth keeping:

  1. Gap analysis: Where specifically are they falling short?
  2. Improvement plan: Specific, measurable, time-bound targets
  3. Support: Provide training, share best practices, co-invest if needed
  4. Review: Monthly progress checks, 90-day formal reassessment
  5. Decision: Improved to B+ → continue. Still C or worse → phase out.

Output Format

# Supplier Scorecard: {Supplier Name}

## Overall Score: {X.X} / 5.0 — Grade: {A/B/C/D}

## Detailed Scores
| Dimension | Weight | Score | Weighted |
|-----------|--------|-------|---------|
| Quality | {%} | {X.X} | {X.XX} |
| Cost | {%} | {X.X} | {X.XX} |
| Delivery | {%} | {X.X} | {X.XX} |
| Service | {%} | {X.X} | {X.XX} |
| **Total** | **100%** | — | **{X.XX}** |

## KPI Details
| KPI | Target | Actual | Score |
|-----|--------|--------|-------|
| Defect rate | <500 PPM | {X} PPM | {1-5} |
| On-time delivery | >95% | {%} | {1-5} |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Risk Assessment
| Risk | Level | Mitigation |
|------|-------|-----------|
| {risk} | H/M/L | {action} |

## Action Plan
{Based on grade: preferred/maintain/improve/phase out}

Gotchas

  • Weighting should reflect YOUR priorities: A medical device company should weight Quality at 50%+. A commodity buyer might weight Cost at 40%. Don't use generic weights.
  • Score inflation: Purchasing teams may inflate scores to avoid difficult conversations with suppliers. Require data-backed evidence for each score.
  • Review frequency: A-grade quarterly, B/C-grade monthly, D-grade weekly until resolved.
  • Supplier relationship matters: Scorecards are tools for improvement, not punishment. Share results with suppliers transparently — the best suppliers want feedback.
  • TCO includes hidden costs: Don't forget: incoming inspection labor, warehouse space for safety stock (to cover unreliable delivery), engineering time for quality issues, customs/logistics for overseas suppliers.

References

  • For TCO calculation methodology, see references/tco-calculation.md
  • For supplier audit checklists, see references/supplier-audit.md

What ships with it: 3 files

28.6 KB alongside SKILL.md

examples/

references/

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.