rfp-response-quality-tone-review

rfp-response-quality-tone-review is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from pnp/sharepoint-skills. It costs 56 tokens per session (3,031 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A review guide for checking a proposal draft’s tone, structure, clarity, and consistency after its required content has been checked.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review proposals against a firm’s profile, writing standards, specializations, methodology, and value message, then record findings and annotate the draft.
Why use it?
It finds writing problems that a compliance check may miss, such as vague claims, inconsistent voice, or a story that does not hold together.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it to review proposals against a firm’s profile, writing standards, specializations, methodology, and value message, then record findings and annotate the draft.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/pnp/sharepoint-skills/rfp-response-quality-tone-review
Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Any agent
npx skills add pnp/sharepoint-skills --skill rfp-response-quality-tone-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pnp/sharepoint-skills

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for rfp-response-quality-tone-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pnp/sharepoint-skills/rfp-response-quality-tone-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/pnp/sharepoint-skills/rfp-response-quality-tone-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pnp/sharepoint-skills/rfp-response-quality-tone-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pnp/sharepoint-skills/rfp-response-quality-tone-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

agentmods 80×15 button for rfp-response-quality-tone-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pnp/sharepoint-skills/rfp-response-quality-tone-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pnp/sharepoint-skills/rfp-response-quality-tone-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 56 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 3,031 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00056 $0.03031
Opus 5 $0.00028 $0.01515
Sonnet 5 $0.00011 $0.00606
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00303

Measured 13d ago against content hash 49732c41ddcc, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-12, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

rfp-response-quality-tone-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 13d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

Skills/rfp-response-quality-tone-review/rfp-response-quality-tone-review/SKILL.md · 273 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 273 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Quality & Tone Review Skill

Firm Profile (REQUIRED — fill in before use)

These values define who your firm is and how it writes. See SETUP.md.

  • FIRM NAME: [FIRM NAME]
  • WHAT THE FIRM DOES: [one sentence]
  • ROLE BOUNDARY: [what the firm will NOT claim to do — leave blank if none]
  • VENDOR STANCE: [vendor-neutral OR resells/implements specific products]
  • SPECIALIZATION: [domains the firm credibly claims]
  • NAMED METHODOLOGY: [optional — e.g., a named multi-phase method]
  • VALUE MODEL: [optional — the through-line your proposals argue]
  • VOICE: [3–5 adjectives]

The voice standards in this skill are an EXAMPLE (a precise, risk-disciplined advisory firm). Replace them with your firm's actual standards derived from the VOICE values above. Keep the structure; change the content.


Purpose

A proposal that passes compliance may still fail on quality. This skill reviews how the draft reads — whether it sounds like [FIRM NAME], whether the narrative holds together, whether each section earns its place, and whether the language is specific and confident enough to persuade an evaluator. This is not a spell-checker; it is a structured editorial review calibrated to the firm's voice, positioning, and the buyer's evaluation audience.


Firm Voice Standards (EXAMPLE — customize for your firm)

Every quality finding is evaluated against these standards. Replace the examples with your own before use.

What the Firm's Voice Sounds Like

Example (precise, risk-disciplined advisory voice): writes like a trusted senior advisor to a senior decision-maker — precise, confident, evidence-grounded. Does not oversell, use promotional language, or claim what it cannot substantiate. Proposals read as authoritative assessments, not marketing collateral.

Quality Description Example
Specific Claims anchored to facts, frameworks, or named methodology "Our delivery framework begins with a structured readiness assessment" — not "We take a comprehensive approach"
Risk-aware Acknowledges complexity and risk honestly "Adoption at this scale presents change-management challenges that require clear decision rights before rollout"
Outcome-oriented Explains what the client will do differently "Following the design phase, the organization will have a defensible, audit-ready governance structure"
Accountable Commitments clear and tied to the firm's scope "We will deliver a framework and a knowledge-transfer plan — not a deployed system"
Consistent with positioning Voice reflects the firm's VENDOR STANCE "We will facilitate an objective evaluation of options against your defined requirements"

Read the full file on GitHub · 273 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 13d ago First seen · 273 lines · 56 tokens per session scan A 49732c41ddcc

Subscribe to this mod's changes

rfp-response-quality-tone-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository pnp/sharepoint-skills (118 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 56 tokens to every session and 3,031 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.