asgard-ai-platform/mfg-supplier-scorecard
Evaluate and manage suppliers using weighted scorecards across quality, delivery, price, and service dimensions. Use this skill when the user needs to assess supplier performance, compare vendors for selection, design a supplier rating system, or manage supplier development — even if they say 'which supplier should we choose', 'rate our vendors', 'this supplier keeps delivering late', or 'build a vendor evaluation system'.
npx skills add https://github.com/asgard-ai-platform/skills --skill mfg-supplier-scorecard
IRON LAW: Evaluate on QCDS (Quality, Cost, Delivery, Service) — Not Just Price
The cheapest supplier who delivers defective parts late with no support
is the most expensive supplier. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) includes:
purchase price + incoming inspection + rework + downtime from defects +
expediting fees + management overhead.
NEVER select suppliers on price alone.
| Dimension | Weight (typical) | KPIs |
|-----------|-----------------|------|
| Quality | 30-40% | Defect rate (PPM), incoming inspection pass rate, certifications (ISO 9001), corrective action responsiveness |
| Cost | 20-30% | Unit price, total cost of ownership, price stability, payment terms |
| Delivery | 20-30% | On-time delivery rate, lead time, lead time variability, flexibility for rush orders |
| Service | 10-20% | Responsiveness, communication quality, technical support, willingness to collaborate on improvements |
| Grade | Score | Strategy |
|-------|-------|---------|
| A | >4.0 | Preferred supplier, increase business, joint development |
| B | 3.0-4.0 | Approved supplier, maintain, targeted improvement |
| C | 2.0-3.0 | Conditional, improvement plan required within 90 days |
| D | <2.0 | Phase out, begin alternative sourcing immediately |
| Risk Factor | Question | Mitigation |
|-------------|---------|-----------|
| Single source | Is this supplier the only source for a critical component? | Develop backup supplier |
| Geographic | Is the supplier in a region prone to disruption? | Dual-source across regions |
| Financial | Is the supplier financially stable? | Monitor credit, require financial disclosures |
| Capacity | Can the supplier scale with our growth? | Capacity commitment agreements |
| IP | Does the supplier have access to our proprietary designs? | NDA + IP clauses in contract |
For C-grade suppliers worth keeping:
# Supplier Scorecard: {Supplier Name}
## Overall Score: {X.X} / 5.0 — Grade: {A/B/C/D}
## Detailed Scores
| Dimension | Weight | Score | Weighted |
|-----------|--------|-------|---------|
| Quality | {%} | {X.X} | {X.XX} |
| Cost | {%} | {X.X} | {X.XX} |
| Delivery | {%} | {X.X} | {X.XX} |
| Service | {%} | {X.X} | {X.XX} |
| **Total** | **100%** | — | **{X.XX}** |
## KPI Details
| KPI | Target | Actual | Score |
|-----|--------|--------|-------|
| Defect rate | <500 PPM | {X} PPM | {1-5} |
| On-time delivery | >95% | {%} | {1-5} |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
## Risk Assessment
| Risk | Level | Mitigation |
|------|-------|-----------|
| {risk} | H/M/L | {action} |
## Action Plan
{Based on grade: preferred/maintain/improve/phase out}
references/tco-calculation.mdreferences/supplier-audit.mdTake asgard-ai-platform/mfg-supplier-scorecard from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.