vendor-review-e60d9e — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited vendor-review-e60d9e (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
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.
/vendor-review $ARGUMENTSWhen comparing vendors, produce a side-by-side matrix covering: pricing, features, integrations, security, support, contract terms, and references.
## 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]If ~~knowledge base is connected:
If ~~procurement is connected:
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.