Menu
Create winning RFP/RFI responses by analyzing requirements, structuring compliant proposals, and crafting compelling win themes
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Run a structured 5-pass finishing audit on any website before launch — scoring visual polish, technical foundation, UX completeness, content quality, and cross-device readiness on 100 points. Use when: **Pre-launch** - Final validation before going live; **Post-redesign** - Verify nothing broke during the overhaul; **Client handoff** - Structured proof that the site is ready; **Quarterly review** - Catch accumulated debt; **Single-pass focus** - Run just Pass 2 after a perf sprint
Use when rewriting AI-generated text to match a specific person's or brand's authentic voice. Use when AI output sounds generic, corporate, or detectable. Unlike generic "humanizers," this skill requires voice analysis input and produces voice-consistent output, not fake imperfections.
Process large codebases (>100 files) using the Recursive Language Model pattern. Orchestrates parallel sub-agents to map-reduce across files without context rot. Use when: analyzing large repositories; auditing security or auth across many files; finding patterns across 50+ files; processing large log files or data dumps
Model best-case, worst-case, and likely revenue scenarios with sensitivity analysis for strategic planning. Use when: building financial forecasts; presenting board scenarios; planning headcount around revenue uncertainty; modeling pricing changes impact; preparing investor updates with upside/downside ranges
Use when analyzing server logs to understand how AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot) interact with your site. Use when optimizing content placement for LLM retrieval, diagnosing why AI search isn't citing your content, or auditing crawl patterns to find optimization gaps.
Use when optimizing for AI search visibility where individual experts and entities outperform generic brand pages. Use when building cross-platform authority for people, organizations, or products that AI models should recognize and cite.
| name | rfp-response |
| description | Create winning RFP/RFI responses by analyzing requirements, structuring compliant proposals, and crafting compelling win themes |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"author":"ClawFu","version":"1.0.0","mcp-server":"@clawfu/mcp-skills"} |
Transform complex RFP requirements into winning proposals through systematic analysis, compliant structure, and compelling differentiation.
Based on Shipley Associates Proposal Management and APMP best practices, combining:
| Claude Does | You Decide |
|---|---|
| Analyzes requirements | Bid/no-bid decision |
| Creates compliance matrix | Pricing strategy |
| Structures sections | Resource allocation |
| Drafts content | Win themes priority |
| Identifies gaps | Go/no-go approval |
Initial Assessment:
| Element | What to Extract |
|---|---|
| Issuer | Organization, contact |
| Due Date | Submission deadline |
| Budget | Stated or estimated |
| Scope | Core requirements |
| Evaluation | Criteria and weights |
| Format | Page limits, structure |
Bid/No-Bid Factors:
| Factor | Score 1-5 |
|---|---|
| Solution fit | |
| Relationship strength | |
| Competitive position | |
| Resource availability | |
| Strategic value | |
| Win probability |
Requirement Tracking:
| Req # | Requirement | Response Section | Status | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Description | 3.2 | Draft | Name |
| 1.2 | Description | 3.3 | Review | Name |
Compliance Levels:
Theme Framework:
| Theme | Evidence | Differentiator | Evaluator Benefit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theme 1 | Proof point | Why unique | What they gain |
Theme Formula:
[Feature] + [Evidence] = [Benefit to Evaluator]
Example: "Our dedicated success team (feature) +
98% retention rate (evidence) =
lower risk of implementation failure (benefit)"
Structure per Section:
Ghost Competitors:
Executive Summary Formula:
| Section | Length | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Hook | 1-2 sentences | Their biggest challenge |
| Understanding | 1 paragraph | Prove you get it |
| Solution | 1-2 paragraphs | Your approach |
| Why Us | 1 paragraph | Differentiation |
| CTA | 1-2 sentences | Clear next step |
Input:
Help me respond to this RFP:
- Client: City of Springfield
- Need: New CRM system for citizen services
- Budget: $500K
- Timeline: 18-month implementation
- Evaluation: 40% technical, 30% price, 20% experience, 10% references
Output:
## RFP Response Plan: City of Springfield CRM
### Win Themes
| Theme | Evidence | Application |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| **Government Expertise** | 47 municipal deployments | Use throughout |
| **Citizen-Centric** | 4.8/5 satisfaction score | Technical sections |
| **On-Time Delivery** | 94% on-schedule rate | Timeline section |
---
### Compliance Matrix (Sample)
| Req # | Requirement | Section | Status | Win Theme |
|-------|-------------|---------|--------|-----------|
| 2.1 | Multi-channel citizen intake | 4.1 | C | Citizen-Centric |
| 2.2 | Integration with existing 311 | 4.2 | C | Gov Expertise |
| 2.3 | Mobile app for citizens | 4.3 | C | Citizen-Centric |
| 2.4 | Real-time reporting dashboard | 4.4 | C | Gov Expertise |
| 2.5 | ADA compliance | 4.5 | C | Citizen-Centric |
---
### Executive Summary (Draft)
---
**THE CHALLENGE**
Springfield's 200,000 citizens deserve modern, responsive government services. Your current system, built 15 years ago, creates delays and frustration for both citizens and staff.
**OUR UNDERSTANDING**
Springfield needs more than a CRM upgrade—you need a citizen experience transformation. Based on our analysis of your RFP and conversations with your team, your priorities are:
1. Reducing citizen wait times from 10+ minutes to under 2
2. Enabling true omnichannel service (phone, web, mobile, in-person)
3. Providing leadership with real-time visibility into service delivery
4. Ensuring full ADA and accessibility compliance
**OUR SOLUTION**
CivicConnect, our purpose-built municipal CRM, addresses these exact needs. Unlike generic CRMs adapted for government, CivicConnect was designed from day one for citizen services.
Key capabilities:
- **Unified citizen profile** across all channels
- **AI-assisted routing** reducing resolution time by 40%
- **Real-time dashboards** built for elected officials and department heads
- **Native accessibility** exceeding WCAG 2.1 AA standards
**WHY [COMPANY]**
With 47 successful municipal deployments, including [Similar City] and [Another City], we understand government's unique requirements. Our 94% on-schedule delivery rate and 98% client retention demonstrate our commitment to partnership, not just projects.
**NEXT STEPS**
We propose a discovery workshop with your team to validate requirements and refine the implementation approach. This investment in upfront alignment is how we achieve our 94% on-time rate.
---
### Section 4.1: Multi-Channel Citizen Intake (Draft)
---
**CivicConnect's unified intake system transforms how Springfield citizens access services.**
Understanding the Need: Springfield citizens currently experience fragmented service—phone callers repeat information to multiple departments, online submissions disappear into queues, and walk-in visitors wait while staff search for context. This frustration is avoidable.
Our Approach: CivicConnect provides true omnichannel intake with a single citizen record:
| Channel | Capability | Citizen Benefit |
|---------|------------|-----------------|
| Phone | CTI integration, screen pop | Staff see full history instantly |
| Web | Smart forms, auto-routing | Right department first time |
| Mobile | GPS-enabled reporting | Location auto-populated |
| In-Person | Queue management, kiosk | Reduced wait times |
| Email | NLP categorization | Faster routing |
Evidence: When [Similar City] implemented this approach, they saw:
- 62% reduction in repeat contacts
- 3.2-minute average resolution (from 10.4 minutes)
- 89% citizen satisfaction (from 67%)
Benefit to Springfield: Citizens get answers faster, staff spend time solving problems rather than gathering information, and leadership sees exactly where bottlenecks occur.
---
### Evaluation Strategy
| Criteria | Weight | Our Strength | Strategy |
|----------|--------|--------------|----------|
| Technical | 40% | Strong | Lead with gov-specific features |
| Price | 30% | Competitive | Emphasize TCO, not just license |
| Experience | 20% | Very Strong | Heavy use of case studies |
| References | 10% | Strong | Prep 3 referenceable clients |
**Ghosting Competitors:**
- Generic CRM vendors: Emphasize "purpose-built for government"
- Low-cost options: Focus on "total cost of ownership" and implementation risk
- Larger vendors: Highlight "dedicated government team" and responsiveness
Input:
Quick compliance check for these requirements:
1. Must support 500 concurrent users
2. 99.9% uptime SLA required
3. Data must remain in US
4. SOC 2 Type II certification
5. Integration with Salesforce
Output:
## Compliance Quick Check
| Req | Requirement | Status | Notes |
|-----|-------------|--------|-------|
| 1 | 500 concurrent users | C | Supports 2,000+ |
| 2 | 99.9% uptime SLA | C | Standard tier includes |
| 3 | US data residency | C | AWS US-East only |
| 4 | SOC 2 Type II | C | Current certification |
| 5 | Salesforce integration | P | Requires middleware |
### Action Required
**Requirement 5 (Salesforce):**
- Status: Partial compliance
- Gap: No native connector
- Solution: MuleSoft integration (additional $15K)
- Response language: "Integration achieved through certified MuleSoft connector, providing real-time bi-directional sync"
### Recommended Response Approach
Full compliance on 4/5 requirements. For #5, lead with capability, mention integration approach, include cost in pricing section. Do not highlight as limitation.
Follow-up Prompts:
contract-review - Post-award contractssales-pitch-dunford - Oral presentationscompetitive-analysis - Win strategy