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'.
pinned to #4e7f4f8updated last month
Ask your AI client: “install skills/mfg-supplier-scorecard”.
Requires the metahub MCP server installed in your client. Set up MCP.
mh install skills/mfg-supplier-scorecardmetahub onboarded this repo on the author's behalf.
If you own github.com/asgard-ai-platform/skills on GitHub, claim the listing to take over publishing. Your claim preserves the existing eval history and badges; only the curator label is replaced with verified-publisher on your next publish.
Stars
225
Last commit
last month
Latest release
published
- #ai-agent
- #anthropic
- #claude
- #claude-agent-skills
- #claude-code
- #coding-agent
- #knowledge-base
- #mcp
- #methodology
- #open-source
- #prompt-engineering
- #skills
- #taiwan
Automated checks the publisher passed at publish time — structure, docs, safety, and whether the artifact behaves as claimed.4e7f4f8· last month
Behavioral checks ran but aren't published for this artifact; the static checks above ran at publish time.
Documentation
8 passed1 warningHomepage or repository declaredwarn
No homepage or repository declared.
Add a "homepage" or "repository" field to SKILL.md.
Description quality
62 words · 426 chars — "Evaluate and manage suppliers using weighted scorecards across quality, delivery…"
README is present and substantial
33,936 chars · 20 sections · 3 code blocks
Tags / topics declared
13 total — ai-agent, anthropic, claude, claude-agent-skills, claude-code, coding-agent (+7)
README has usage / example sections
no labeled section but 3 code blocks document usage
Homepage / docs URL declared
https://vault.asgard-ai.com/skills/
Description is substantive
Description is 62 words.
Documentation present and substantive
Documentation present (SKILL.md, 793 words).
Documentation shows usage
Documentation includes 2 code examples.
Release history
1- releasecurrent4e7f4f8warnlast month
Contents
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)
| Dimension | Weight (typical) | KPIs |
|---|---|---|
| Quality | 30-40% | Defect rate (PPM), incoming inspection pass rate, certifications (ISO 9001), corrective action responsiveness |
| Cost | 20-30% | Unit price, total cost of ownership, price stability, payment terms |
| Delivery | 20-30% | On-time delivery rate, lead time, lead time variability, flexibility for rush orders |
| Service | 10-20% | Responsiveness, communication quality, technical support, willingness to collaborate on improvements |
Scoring Method
- Define KPIs per dimension (2-3 per dimension)
- Set weights (must sum to 100%)
- 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)
- Calculate weighted total
- Classify: A (>4.0), B (3.0-4.0), C (2.0-3.0), D (<2.0)
Supplier Classification & Actions
| Grade | Score | Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| A | >4.0 | Preferred supplier, increase business, joint development |
| B | 3.0-4.0 | Approved supplier, maintain, targeted improvement |
| C | 2.0-3.0 | Conditional, improvement plan required within 90 days |
| D | <2.0 | Phase out, begin alternative sourcing immediately |
Risk Assessment
| Risk Factor | Question | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Single source | Is this supplier the only source for a critical component? | Develop backup supplier |
| Geographic | Is the supplier in a region prone to disruption? | Dual-source across regions |
| Financial | Is the supplier financially stable? | Monitor credit, require financial disclosures |
| Capacity | Can the supplier scale with our growth? | Capacity commitment agreements |
| IP | Does the supplier have access to our proprietary designs? | NDA + IP clauses in contract |
Supplier Development Program (SDP)
For C-grade suppliers worth keeping:
- Gap analysis: Where specifically are they falling short?
- Improvement plan: Specific, measurable, time-bound targets
- Support: Provide training, share best practices, co-invest if needed
- Review: Monthly progress checks, 90-day formal reassessment
- 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
Reviews
No reviews yet. Be the first.
Related
Verification Before Completion
Evidence before assertions, always
Writing Plans
Turn specs into phased implementation plans
Test-Driven Development
Red → green → refactor discipline for any feature or bugfix
mh install skills/mfg-supplier-scorecard