Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sun2443/designer-skillsnpx agentmods add skills/sun2443/designer-skills/vendor-reviewWrote 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.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/vendor-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/vendor-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/vendor-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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/vendor-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/vendor-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>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.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00054 | $0.00730 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00292 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00146 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
vendor-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.
This is a copy
100% identical to vendor-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/vendor-review
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Evaluate a vendor with structured analysis covering cost, risk, performance, and fit.
Usage
/vendor-review $ARGUMENTS
What I Need From You
- Vendor name: Who are you evaluating?
- Context: New vendor evaluation, renewal decision, or comparison?
- Details: Contract terms, pricing, proposal document, or current performance data
Evaluation Framework
Cost Analysis (Total Cost of Ownership)
- Total cost of ownership (not just license fees)
- Implementation and migration costs
- Training and onboarding costs
- Ongoing support and maintenance
- Exit costs (data migration, contract termination)
Risk Assessment
- Vendor financial stability
- Security and compliance posture
- Concentration risk (single vendor dependency)
- Contract lock-in and exit terms
- Business continuity and disaster recovery
Performance Metrics
- SLA compliance
- Support response times
- Uptime and reliability
- Feature delivery cadence
- Customer satisfaction
Comparison Matrix
When comparing vendors, produce a side-by-side matrix covering: pricing, features, integrations, security, support, contract terms, and references.
Output
## Vendor Review: [Vendor Name]
**Date:** [Date] | **Type:** [New / Renewal / Comparison]
### Summary
[2-3 sentence recommendation]
### Cost Analysis
| Component | Annual Cost | Notes |
|-----------|-------------|-------|
| License/subscription | $[X] | [Per seat, flat, usage-based] |
| Implementation | $[X] | [One-time] |
| Support/maintenance | $[X] | [Included or add-on] |
| **Total Year 1** | **$[X]** | |
| **Total 3-Year** | **$[X]** | |
### Risk Assessment
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-----------|--------|------------|
| [Risk] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [Mitigation] |
### Strengths
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]
### Concerns
- [Concern 1]
- [Concern 2]
### Recommendation
[Proceed / Negotiate / Pass] — [Reasoning]
### Negotiation Points
- [Leverage point 1]
- [Leverage point 2]
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 105 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A c2a959a7ed06
vendor-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository sun2443/designer-skills (0 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 730 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to vendor-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
weekly-update
OpenDesign's weekly metrics standup: this week's numbers, the one anomaly, and the single decision it forces. Built as a decision-grade data & finance deck for ops & growth team.
close-management
Manage the month-end close process with task sequencing, dependencies, and status tracking. Use when planning the close calendar, tracking close progress, identifying blockers, or sequencing close activities by day.
closing-checklist
What's blocking close — maintain the closing checklist with status, critical path, and days to close. Self-updating: ingests new items from diligence findings and schedule builds, tracks status, surfaces what's blocking. Use when user says "closing checklist", "what's left to close", "checklist status", "add to the…
dd-checklist
Generate and track comprehensive due diligence checklists tailored to the target company's sector, deal type, and complexity. Covers all major workstreams with request lists, status tracking, and red flag escalation. Use when kicking off diligence, organizing a data room review, or tracking outstanding items. Triggers…
syndic
Gère un parc de copropriétés en France avec vue portfolio consolidée. Couvre administration, comptabilité (décret 2005, plan comptable copro, 5 annexes), assemblées générales (convocation, PV, notification), appels de fonds, travaux, fournisseurs, recouvrement d'impayés et transition de syndic. Maîtrise les majorités…
china-deal-tracker
A structured tracker for an A-share sell-side merger and acquisition process. It records the deal, its status, milestones, deadlines, dependencies, and follow-up actions from mandate signing through closing or termination.