ops-vendor-review

name	ops-vendor-review
description	Evaluate a vendor, tool, or service provider with capability assessment, risk analysis, cost comparison, and recommendation. Triggers on "review [vendor]", "evaluate [tool]", "should we use [service]", "vendor comparison", "vendor assessment for [name]"
metadata	{"openclaw":{"tags":["operations","vendor","procurement","evaluation"]}}

Vendor Review

When the user asks to evaluate or compare vendors, tools, or service providers:

Step 1: Define evaluation scope

Gather from the user:

• Vendor(s) to evaluate: one vendor deep-dive or multi-vendor comparison
• Category: what problem the vendor solves
• Requirements: must-have and nice-to-have capabilities
• Budget: cost constraints or target pricing
• Team size: number of users or scale of deployment
• Timeline: when a decision is needed
• Current solution: what they use today (if anything)

Step 2: Research vendors

Use capability_execute with capabilityId "research.web_search" for each vendor:

1. Product features and capabilities
2. Pricing model and published pricing
3. Customer reviews and ratings (G2, Capterra, Trustpilot)
4. Case studies and customer testimonials
5. Company background (founding, funding, team size, growth)
6. Recent product updates and roadmap announcements
7. Integration ecosystem and API capabilities
8. Security certifications and compliance (SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR)
9. Support model (SLA, channels, hours)
10. Known issues or complaints

Step 3: Company enrichment

Use capability_execute with capabilityId "enrichment.lookup_company" for vendor viability:

• Company size and growth trajectory
• Funding history and financial stability
• Market position and competitive landscape
• Technology stack and infrastructure

Step 4: Internal context

Use capability_execute with capabilityId "chat.search_messages" to find:

• Internal discussions about this vendor or category
• Feedback from team members who evaluated or used the vendor
• Requirements or concerns raised by stakeholders
• Previous vendor evaluations for the same category

Use capability_execute with capabilityId "docs.search_files" to find:

• Existing vendor evaluation documents
• Procurement policies and approval requirements
• Current contracts and renewal dates
• Security assessment questionnaires

Step 5: Evaluate against requirements

Score each vendor against:

• Functional fit: how well it meets stated requirements (weighted)
• Technical fit: integration, scalability, architecture alignment
• Vendor viability: financial health, market position, longevity risk
• Security & compliance: certifications, data handling, privacy
• Support & service: responsiveness, SLAs, customer success
• Cost: TCO including implementation, licensing, maintenance
• User experience: ease of use, adoption friction, training needs

Step 6: Build recommendation

Use capability_execute with capabilityId "docs.create_brief" to save:

• Complete vendor evaluation document

Use capability_execute with capabilityId "project.create_task" to create:

• Follow-up tasks (schedule demo, request proposal, security review)

Output Format

Vendor Review: [Category]

Evaluation Summary

Field	Value
Category	what problem is being solved
Vendors Evaluated	list
Evaluation Date	date
Decision Needed By	date
Recommended Vendor	name (or "more evaluation needed")
Confidence Level	High / Medium / Low

Executive Recommendation 3-4 sentence recommendation with the recommended vendor, primary reasons for the choice, and key caveats.

Requirements Matrix

Requirement	Weight	Vendor A	Vendor B	Vendor C
Requirement 1 (must-have)	Critical	Yes/No/Partial	Yes/No/Partial	Yes/No/Partial
Requirement 2 (must-have)	Critical	Yes/No/Partial	Yes/No/Partial	Yes/No/Partial
Requirement 3 (nice-to-have)	High	Yes/No/Partial	Yes/No/Partial	Yes/No/Partial
Requirement 4 (nice-to-have)	Medium	Yes/No/Partial	Yes/No/Partial	Yes/No/Partial

Vendor Profiles

[Vendor A Name]

Field	Value
Website	url
Founded	year
Company Size	employees
Funding	total raised
Customers	notable customers
Pricing	model and approximate cost

Strengths

• 3-5 specific strengths with evidence

Weaknesses

• 3-5 specific weaknesses with evidence

Customer Sentiment: X/5 from [source] (X reviews) Key themes from reviews: positive and negative patterns

---

(Repeat for each vendor)

Comparative Scorecard

Dimension	Weight	Vendor A	Vendor B	Vendor C
Functional Fit	30%	X/5	X/5	X/5
Technical Fit	20%	X/5	X/5	X/5
Vendor Viability	15%	X/5	X/5	X/5
Security & Compliance	15%	X/5	X/5	X/5
Support & Service	10%	X/5	X/5	X/5
Cost	10%	X/5	X/5	X/5
Weighted Total	100%	X/5	X/5	X/5

Cost Comparison

Cost Component	Vendor A	Vendor B	Vendor C
License/Subscription (annual)	$X	$X	$X
Implementation	$X	$X	$X
Training	$X	$X	$X
Ongoing Support	$X	$X	$X
Total Year 1	$X	$X	$X
Total 3-Year TCO	$X	$X	$X

Risk Assessment

Vendor	Risk	Likelihood	Impact	Mitigation
Vendor A	specific risk	level	level	mitigation
Vendor B	specific risk	level	level	mitigation

Integration Assessment

Integration	Vendor A	Vendor B	Vendor C
integration need	Native / API / Third-party / None	same	same

Recommendation

Recommended: [Vendor Name]

Rationale:

1. Primary reason with evidence
2. Secondary reason with evidence
3. Supporting factor

Caveats:

• Important considerations or conditions for the recommendation

Next Steps

Step	Action	Owner	Date
1	Schedule vendor demo	name	date
2	Request detailed proposal	name	date
3	Security assessment	name	date
4	Reference check	name	date
5	Final decision	name	date

Sources

• List all research sources with links