cowork-vendor-comparison

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.

Jump to install

Repository: OneWave-AI/claude-skills
Last source activity: July 15, 2026 at 21:22
Detected SKILL.md language: English
Stars: 256
Forks: 42

Install options

The review-first prompt is selected by default. You can switch to a direct command or download a local copy.

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.

A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.

npx skills add https://github.com/OneWave-AI/claude-skills --skill cowork-vendor-comparison

The command stays on one line. Scroll horizontally to inspect it before copying.

Prefer a local copy? Download the files currently available to SkillsMP.

Review the source files

Read SKILL.md and any companion files shown by SkillsMP before deciding whether to install.

SKILL.md

Source instructions · Read-only preview

Back to search Back to installation

design-export-repair

Fixes broken decks/PDFs exported from Claude's "Design" feature (or similar AI deck generators) — cut-off or clipped text, wrong/substituted fonts, and corrupted .pptx package structure that shows up only once you export to PDF, not while looking at it in the app. Use this skill whenever the user uploads a zip, .pptx, or .pdf exported from Claude Design (or mentions "Design" export, an AI-generated deck, or a generated slide deck/PDF) AND reports it looking broken, wrong, cut off, garbled, or different from the original when opened, printed, or converted to PDF — even if they don't use the word "repair" or name the specific defect. Also trigger for general "my exported PDF/deck is broken, help fix it" requests when the file was clearly produced by an AI design/deck tool rather than hand-authored. Produces both a repaired, still-editable .pptx and a clean PDF, plus a report of exactly what was wrong and what changed.

2026-08-10

cash-flow-forecaster

Build a 13-week rolling cash flow forecast from bank exports, AR aging, AP bills, payroll, and recurring commitments -- the report that tells a small business whether it survives the quarter. Flags the crunch weeks early enough to act.

2026-07-15

commercial-lease-analyzer

Decode a commercial lease before signing or renewing -- true all-in occupancy cost (base rent plus NNN/CAM plus escalations), the clauses that hurt small tenants (personal guarantees, relocation, restoration), and the negotiation asks landlords routinely grant. The lease is most SMBs' biggest fixed cost and least-read document.

2026-07-15

View all from this repository

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