mcpbeat

Mfg Supplier Scorecard

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'.

9k tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
4
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
223
stars on the repo
on the repository, not the skill itself

Install

one command, takes just this skill from the repository
npx skills add https://github.com/asgard-ai-platform/skills --skill mfg-supplier-scorecard

What comes with it

29 322 bytes besides the instruction
examples/sample_scenario.md
references/supplier-audit.md
references/tco-calculation.md

The instruction itself

10 sections, as written by the author

Supplier Scorecard

Framework

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.

Four Evaluation Dimensions (QCDS)

| 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 |

Scoring Method

  • Define KPIs per dimension (2-3 per dimension)
  • Set weights (must sum to 100%)
  • Score each KPI: 1-5 scale with clear definitions:
  • 5 = Excellent (top 10% of suppliers)
  • 4 = Good (meets all requirements consistently)
  • 3 = Acceptable (meets most requirements)
  • 2 = Below expectations (frequent issues)
  • 1 = Unacceptable (critical problems)
  • Calculate weighted total
  • Classify: A (>4.0), B (3.0-4.0), C (2.0-3.0), D (<2.0)

Supplier Classification & Actions

| 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 Assessment

| 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 |

Supplier Development Program (SDP)

For C-grade suppliers worth keeping:

  • Gap analysis: Where specifically are they falling short?
  • Improvement plan: Specific, measurable, time-bound targets
  • Support: Provide training, share best practices, co-invest if needed
  • Review: Monthly progress checks, 90-day formal reassessment
  • Decision: Improved to B+ → continue. Still C or worse → phase out.

Output Format

# 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}

Gotchas

  • Weighting should reflect YOUR priorities: A medical device company should weight Quality at 50%+. A commodity buyer might weight Cost at 40%. Don't use generic weights.
  • Score inflation: Purchasing teams may inflate scores to avoid difficult conversations with suppliers. Require data-backed evidence for each score.
  • Review frequency: A-grade quarterly, B/C-grade monthly, D-grade weekly until resolved.
  • Supplier relationship matters: Scorecards are tools for improvement, not punishment. Share results with suppliers transparently — the best suppliers want feedback.
  • TCO includes hidden costs: Don't forget: incoming inspection labor, warehouse space for safety stock (to cover unreliable delivery), engineering time for quality issues, customs/logistics for overseas suppliers.

References

  • For TCO calculation methodology, see references/tco-calculation.md
  • For supplier audit checklists, see references/supplier-audit.md

How to use it

Copy the folder

Take asgard-ai-platform/mfg-supplier-scorecard from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.

Check the name does not clash

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.