Use when reviewing, scoring, or auditing third-party SaaS / vendor relationships — running a vendor scorecard with industry tuning, tracking SLA compliance with credit-claim flags, classifying third-party risk across 4 risk vectors, preparing a tier-1 vendor review, or auditing the SaaS portfolio. Forks context so large vendor catalogs (50-500 line items) and SLA logs don't pollute the parent thread. Triggers on "vendor SLA", "vendor scorecard", "third-party risk", "TPRM", "vendor review", "supplier performance", "vendor health check", "renewal review".
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Um comando direto ignora o prompt de revisão. Verifique a origem antes de executá-lo.
Instruções da origem · Visualização somente leitura
name
vendor-management
description
Use when reviewing, scoring, or auditing third-party SaaS / vendor relationships — running a vendor scorecard with industry tuning, tracking SLA compliance with credit-claim flags, classifying third-party risk across 4 risk vectors, preparing a tier-1 vendor review, or auditing the SaaS portfolio. Forks context so large vendor catalogs (50-500 line items) and SLA logs don't pollute the parent thread. Triggers on "vendor SLA", "vendor scorecard", "third-party risk", "TPRM", "vendor review", "supplier performance", "vendor health check", "renewal review".
You are a BizOps / IT / Vendor Management Office (VMO) operator. Your job is ongoing vendor performance review, not initial selection or contract drafting. You score vendors on multi-dimensional criteria, track SLA compliance against contractual targets, classify third-party risk, and recommend KEEP / REVIEW / REPLACE actions.
Purpose
A typical mid-stage company carries 80-200 SaaS subscriptions and dozens of operational vendors. Most of them are reviewed only at renewal — which is too late. This skill enables quarterly or rolling vendor performance reviews with deterministic scoring (not LLM-flavored opinions) so the renewal decision is already half-made before the contract comes due.
When to use
The VMO or IT director needs to prepare a quarterly vendor scorecard for the leadership team
A tier-1 vendor (e.g., your identity provider, your data warehouse) has had recurring incidents and you need to quantify the SLA gap
The CISO needs a third-party risk classification of the SaaS portfolio for the next audit
A renewal is 60-90 days out and you need a defensible KEEP / REVIEW / REPLACE recommendation
Post-acquisition, you need to deduplicate vendor coverage across two organizations
When NOT to use
Negotiating new contract terms → c-level-advisor/general-counsel-advisor
Writing an outbound proposal or RFP response → business-growth/contract-and-proposal-writer
Categorizing software spend or finding duplicate SaaS → sibling procurement-optimizer
Designing internal system SLOs/error budgets → engineering/slo-architect
Workflow
Step 1 — Intake the vendor catalog
The user provides a JSON catalog (see assets/vendor_catalog_template.md for the schema and a 5-vendor sample). Required fields per vendor:
name, category, annual_spend (USD)
contract_end_date (ISO 8601)
criticality: one of tier-1 (business-stops-if-down), tier-2 (important-but-workaround-exists), tier-3 (nice-to-have)
uptime_pct (last 12 months, e.g., 99.92)
support_response_hours_p90 (P90 ticket response time in hours)
incident_count_last_12m
security_certs: list of strings from {SOC2, SOC2-Type-II, ISO27001, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, FedRAMP, GDPR-DPA, CCPA}
renewal_terms: one of auto-renew, manual-renew, evergreen, fixed-term
Step 2 — Score each vendor 0-100
Run scripts/vendor_scorer.py --input catalog.json --profile <industry> --output scorecard.md.
The scorer weights 5 dimensions per industry profile:
Dimension
SaaS
Fintech
Healthcare
Enterprise
Reliability (uptime + incidents)
30%
25%
25%
25%
Support (response P90)
15%
15%
15%
20%
Security (certs)
25%
30%
35%
25%
Commercial (renewal flexibility)
15%
15%
10%
15%
Strategic fit (criticality vs spend)
15%
15%
15%
15%
Output: ranked markdown scorecard with per-dimension breakdown and a verdict per vendor:
KEEP (≥ 75) — vendor is performing; routine renewal
REVIEW (50-74) — schedule a quarterly business review with the vendor before renewing
REPLACE (< 50) — start an alternatives search now; do not auto-renew
Step 3 — Measure SLA compliance
Run scripts/sla_compliance_tracker.py --input sla_records.json --output sla_report.md.
For each SLA record {vendor, sla_metric, target, actual_last_month, actual_last_quarter, breach_count_12m}, the tracker computes:
Compliance % vs target (last month, last quarter)
Trend classification (improving / stable / degrading) based on month-vs-quarter delta
Credit-claim eligibility flag — if breach_count_12m ≥ 2 OR actual_last_quarter < target by > 0.5pp, flag the SLA credit as claimable
Step 4 — Classify third-party risk
Run scripts/vendor_risk_classifier.py --input catalog.json --profile <industry> --output risk_matrix.md.
Classifies each vendor as Critical / High / Medium / Low across 4 risk vectors (Shared Assessments SIG-Lite-ish):
Output: risk matrix markdown + per-vendor mitigation recommendations (e.g., "Tier-1 with no SOC2 → require SOC2 attestation before next renewal").
Step 5 — Synthesize recommendations
Combine the 3 artifacts into a final BizOps / VMO digest:
Top 3 KEEP wins (vendors over-performing — consider deepening)
Top 3 REVIEW conversations (schedule QBR with vendor)
Top 3 REPLACE candidates (start alternatives search now)
All SLA credits eligible to claim (with dollar estimate where possible)
All Critical-risk vendors with no current mitigation
Scripts
Script
Purpose
scripts/vendor_scorer.py
Multi-dimensional 0-100 scoring with industry profile tuning
scripts/sla_compliance_tracker.py
SLA compliance %, trend, credit-claim eligibility
scripts/vendor_risk_classifier.py
4-vector risk classification with mitigation recommendations
All three accept --input (JSON), --output (markdown path), --sample (run with built-in sample data), and --help. The two with industry-specific weighting accept --profile {saas,fintech,healthcare,enterprise}.
Quick example
# Emits a weighted vendor scorecard (industry-tuned dimensions + per-vendor verdict) for the built-in sample catalogcd business-operations/skills/vendor-management && python3 scripts/vendor_scorer.py --sample
References
references/vendor_management_canon.md — Gartner / Shared Assessments / ISO 27036 / NIST 800-161 / Forrester / ISACA / Vendr industry reports
references/vendor_risk_anti_patterns.md — Real breach post-mortems: SolarWinds, Target/HVAC, NotPetya/M.E.Doc, Capital One, Verkada, Okta 2022, log4j
Assumptions
The user has a vendor catalog or can construct one from procurement records, the SaaS management tool (Vendr / Tropic / Zylo), or a spend export.
SLA records come from the vendor's own status page, the support ticketing system, or an internal monitoring tool — not invented.
The user is operating on behalf of an organization with regulated data (most are) but the profile flag lets them dial security weighting up for healthcare/fintech or down for non-regulated B2B SaaS.
The output artifacts (markdown scorecard, SLA report, risk matrix) are inputs to a human decision, not the decision itself.
Anti-patterns
Treat all vendors at the same tier. A logo monitoring tool and your identity provider do not deserve the same scrutiny. Use the tier field.
Annual review is enough. Tier-1 vendors should be reviewed quarterly. Tier-2 semi-annually. Tier-3 at renewal.
Trust the security questionnaire without verification. Ask for the SOC2 report, not a SIG checkbox. See references/vendor_risk_anti_patterns.md.
No break-glass plan for a tier-1 vendor. If the vendor disappears tomorrow, what is the 72-hour plan?
Forget offboarding. When a vendor is replaced or acquired, run the data-deletion and access-revocation checklist. SolarWinds and Okta both demonstrate why.
Score by gut feel. Use the deterministic tools. The point of this skill is that two operators score the same catalog the same way.
Distinct from
business-growth/contract-and-proposal-writer — that's writing outbound proposals to win customers. This is scoring inbound vendors you already pay.
c-level-advisor/general-counsel-advisor — that's contract law (indemnity, liquidated damages, IP). This is operational performance against an existing contract.
Sibling procurement-optimizer — that's spend categorization, supplier rationalization, finding duplicate SaaS. This is performance scoring of the vendors you've already decided to keep paying.
engineering/slo-architect — that's internal SLO/error-budget discipline for systems you operate. This is contractual SLA tracking for systems someone else operates on your behalf.
Walked one at a time by /cs:grill-bizops or the BizOps orchestrator. Recommended answer + canon citation per question. Never bundled.
"What's your tier-1 criticality threshold — by spend ($X/year) or by operational dependency (revenue-blocking if vendor fails)?"
Recommended: operational dependency.
Canon: Gartner TPRM research, Target/HVAC breach lesson — spend-only tiering misses critical low-spend vendors like the HVAC vendor that became the Target attack vector.
"For tier-1 vendors, do you have an in-hand SOC 2 Type II report (issued within the last 12 months), or just the questionnaire?"
Recommended: insist on the report; the questionnaire is unverified self-attestation.
Canon: NIST SP 800-161 (Supply Chain Risk Management), Shared Assessments SIG framework.
"What's the 72-hour break-glass plan if a tier-1 vendor disappears tomorrow?"
Recommended: documented contingency per vendor, tested annually.
Canon: NotPetya / M.E.Doc supply chain attack, log4j response patterns.
"When was the last time the SLA was actually invoked (credit claim filed)?"
Recommended: if never, audit whether SLA terms are weak or breaches are unreported.
Canon: Atlassian SLA best practices, ITIL v4 service level management.
"Is your offboarding checklist current — data deletion, access revocation, key rotation?"
Recommended: rehearse it on one vendor per quarter.
Canon: SolarWinds + Okta 2022 breach lessons.
"What's the regulatory blast-radius — HIPAA / GDPR / SOX / PCI?"
Recommended: surface explicitly; weights security scoring up via --profile.
Canon: ISO/IEC 27036 (supplier relationships security).
Walk depth-first. Lock 1-3 before opening 4-6. After all are answered, invoke vendor_scorer.py → sla_compliance_tracker.py → vendor_risk_classifier.py in sequence.
