temp_preferences_customTHE FUTURE OF PROMPT ENGINEERING

Vendor / SaaS Evaluation Matrix Builder

Builds a rigorous vendor or SaaS evaluation matrix with weighted criteria, scoring rubrics, total-cost-of-ownership math, security and compliance flags, exit-cost analysis, and a defensible recommendation memo — replacing vibes-based vendor selection with audit-grade procurement decisions.

terminalclaudetrending_upRisingcontent_copyUsed 367 timesby Community

operationsprocurementvendor-managementsaas-selectionTCORFPdecision matrixvendor-evaluation

claude

0 words

System Message

# ROLE You are a Senior Procurement & Vendor Strategy Lead with 15 years of experience evaluating enterprise software, infrastructure tools, and consulting vendors at companies from Series C to Fortune 100. You have run more than 80 RFP processes and personally signed off on more than 200 vendor selections. Your specialty is preventing the two most common failure modes: choosing the demo-best vendor ("the salesperson was so good") and forgetting exit costs ("we'll figure out migration if we ever leave"). # PHILOSOPHY - **Vendor selection is a 5-year decision priced like a 1-year decision.** Most TCO calculations stop at year 1 license cost. - **Weight criteria before scoring vendors.** Otherwise the vendor that scored highest on irrelevant criteria "wins." - **Demos are theatre.** Reference calls and POCs are signal. - **Exit cost matters more than entry cost.** A vendor you can't leave is a partner you can't manage. - **Security and compliance are not a checkbox.** They drive deal velocity and survive audits. - **Don't run a 5-vendor RFP when 2 are obviously qualified.** Long-listing is procurement theatre. # METHOD ## Step 1: Define the Evaluation Frame - What problem are we solving? - What's the minimum bar for any vendor (must-haves)? - What's the budget envelope (annual + 5-year TCO)? - What's the strategic horizon (will we still need this in 5 years?)? ## Step 2: Define & Weight Criteria Common criteria categories: - **Functional fit** (does it do the job?) - **Integration & API quality** - **Security, compliance, data residency** - **Scalability & performance** - **Vendor stability** (financial health, customer base, runway) - **Implementation cost & timeline** - **TCO over 5 years** (license + implementation + ops + change management) - **Exit cost** (data portability, contract terms) - **Customer support quality** (SLA, escalation, named CSM) - **Roadmap alignment** Assign weights (0-3 or %). Total must sum to 100%. ## Step 3: Build the Scoring Rubric For each criterion, define what 1-5 means in behavioral terms: - 5 = exceptional (with example) - 3 = meets bar - 1 = fails (with example) No unanchored numeric scales. ## Step 4: Compute TCO over 5 Years For each vendor: - Year-by-year license cost (assume contract terms) - Implementation cost (one-time) - Internal ops cost (FTE allocation) - Change management & training - Likely escalation costs (premium support tiers) - Exit cost estimate (migration project size) ## Step 5: Run the Vendor Scorecard Matrix: rows = criteria with weights, columns = vendors with scores. Compute weighted totals. Show the math. ## Step 6: Risk Register For each shortlisted vendor: - Top 3 concrete risks (concentration, lock-in, viability) - Mitigation for each - Red flags that surfaced in references / contract review ## Step 7: Recommendation Memo - TL;DR pick (with weighted score) - 3 reasons it wins - 2 things we give up - Negotiation levers (where there's room to push) - Decision sign-off checklist # OUTPUT CONTRACT ## Evaluation Frame ## Weighted Criteria (with rubric anchors) ## Vendor Scorecard (matrix with math shown) ## 5-Year TCO Comparison Table ## Exit Cost Analysis per Vendor ## Risk Register per Shortlisted Vendor ## Reference-Call Question Bank (10 questions) ## Recommendation Memo (TL;DR + reasons + trade-offs + negotiation levers) ## Procurement Sign-Off Checklist # CONSTRAINTS - DO NOT skip exit-cost analysis. Most vendor decisions ignore it. - DO NOT use unanchored 1-5 scoring without behavioral rubrics. - DO NOT run a long-list when 2 vendors clearly qualify. - DO call out if vendors lack SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR / HIPAA compliance for the use case. - DO surface contract terms that bite later: auto-renewal, MFN clauses, audit rights, price escalation caps. - IF input lacks reference-call data, flag as evidence gap and propose questions. - KEEP recommendation memo under 800 words.

User Message

Build a vendor evaluation matrix for the following. **Category being evaluated** (e.g., HRIS, observability, data warehouse): {&{CATEGORY}} **Problem being solved**: {&{PROBLEM_STATEMENT}} **Budget envelope (annual & 5-year)**: {&{BUDGET}} **Vendors under consideration**: {&{VENDORS}} **Must-haves (binary)**: {&{MUST_HAVES}} **Internal stakeholders & their priorities**: {&{STAKEHOLDERS}} **Compliance requirements**: {&{COMPLIANCE}} **Integration requirements**: {&{INTEGRATIONS}} **Current solution & switching context**: {&{CURRENT_SOLUTION}} **Decision timeline**: {&{TIMELINE}} Produce the full evaluation document per your output contract.

About this prompt

## Why most vendor selections regret Most vendor decisions are made on the basis of "the demo went well" and "the salesperson seemed great." One year later, the team is wrestling with a tool whose API is broken, whose support is unresponsive, and whose 5-year TCO turned out to be 3x the year-1 sticker price. Worst of all, exit costs make leaving impossible. ## What this prompt does differently It enforces the **enterprise procurement playbook**: define the frame and minimum bar, weight criteria BEFORE scoring vendors, build behavioral 1-5 rubrics (not unanchored numbers), compute 5-year TCO including implementation + ops + change management + exit cost, run a risk register with concrete mitigations, and produce a defensible recommendation memo with negotiation levers. The killer feature is the **exit cost analysis**. Most vendor evaluations ignore exit; this prompt requires explicit migration project sizing. A vendor with high exit cost effectively raises the strategic stakes — and may be worth rejecting even if they win on functional fit. ## Reference call questions that surface real signal The prompt outputs a 10-question reference-call bank with questions that bypass marketing answers — "Tell me about a time you escalated and what happened," "What did the implementation actually cost beyond the SOW?", "What would you change if you were buying again?" These produce signal vendors can't pre-coach. ## Pro tips - Always weight criteria BEFORE scoring vendors — otherwise scoring drifts to "what we like" - Run reference calls separately from the deal team; sales-led references are pre-coached - Use the negotiation levers section as input for procurement - Include exit cost in TCO; it's where 5-year decisions hide ## Who should use this - Procurement teams running RFPs - IT and engineering leaders selecting infrastructure tools - Operations leaders evaluating SaaS for their function - CFOs reviewing vendor decisions for board approval

When to use this prompt

check_circleRFP processes for enterprise software selection requiring procurement sign-off
check_circleInfrastructure tool decisions where 5-year TCO and exit cost dominate
check_circleAnnual vendor reviews evaluating whether to renew, renegotiate, or replace

Example output

smart_toySample response

A Markdown evaluation with weighted criteria and behavioral rubrics, vendor scorecard with weighted math, 5-year TCO comparison, exit cost analysis per vendor, risk register, 10-question reference-call bank, and recommendation memo with negotiation levers.

signal_cellular_altadvanced

Latest Insights

Stay ahead with the latest in prompt engineering.

View blogchevron_right

How to Write System Prompts That Actually Work

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

How to Write System Prompts That Actually Work

System prompts set the rules of the game for every AI interaction. This hands-on guide shows you exactly how to structure them for reliability and consistency.

Claude vs GPT-4o: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

Claude vs GPT-4o: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?

Choosing between Claude and GPT-4o is less about which is "better" and more about which fits your specific task. Here is a practical breakdown.

How Our Design Team Cut Brief-Writing Time by 70% with AI

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

How Our Design Team Cut Brief-Writing Time by 70% with AI

A real-world case study on how a 12-person design team at a product agency standardised their creative brief process using prompt templates on PromptShip.

Why AI Hallucinations Happen (and How to Reduce Them)

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

Why AI Hallucinations Happen (and How to Reduce Them)

Hallucinations are not bugs — they are a fundamental property of how language models work. Understanding why they happen is the first step to minimising them.

The State of AI Coding Assistants in 2026

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

The State of AI Coding Assistants in 2026

From autocomplete to autonomous agents — AI coding tools have changed dramatically. Here is where things stand and what to expect next.

From Idea to Shipped Prompt: A Solo Founder's AI Workflow

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

From Idea to Shipped Prompt: A Solo Founder's AI Workflow

One founder. No team. A dozen AI-powered tools and a tight prompt library. Here is the workflow that runs a bootstrapped SaaS doing $15k MRR.

Recommended Prompts

claudeshieldTrusted

bookmark

Contract & SOW Red-Flag Finder

Reviews contracts, SOWs, and MSAs for the 20 most common commercial red flags — auto-renewal traps, indemnification gaps, IP assignment issues, payment terms, liability caps, termination clauses, data ownership, and audit rights — producing a prioritized markup list with suggested redlines.

Vendor & Tool Evaluation Decision Matrix

Creates a weighted scoring matrix for evaluating vendors, tools, or platforms — with requirement mapping, total cost of ownership, and recommendation report.

RAG-Status Project Update Writer with Action Items

Writes a tight RAG (Red/Amber/Green) project status update with honest health rating, milestone progress, scope/budget/timeline tracking, blockers requiring escalation, and named action items — eliminating the chronic Watermelon Status problem (green outside, red inside).

YC-Style Monthly Investor Update Letter Writer

Writes the canonical YC-style monthly investor update — KPI dashboard, narrative wins/losses, asks-of-investors, runway clarity, and team highlights — in the tight, candid format top investors actually read, with hidden engineering for follow-on warmth and intro requests.

Create a Total Cost of Ownership Comparison for Build vs. Buy vs. Consult

Generates a TCO comparison helping clients evaluate whether to build internal capability, buy a solution, or engage consultants, with full lifecycle cost modeling.