Supplier Evaluation Scorecard

SkillDev tools

Evaluate and tier suppliers using a weighted scorecard per SCOR DS Supplier Management practices. Score Quality, Delivery, Cost, Responsiveness, and Sustainability. Classify suppliers as Strategic, Preferred, Approved, or Conditional. Use during vendor reviews or procurement decisions.

Use Supplier Evaluation Scorecard in Claude, ChatGPT or Ahel Desktop

Free. Sign in, add Supplier Evaluation Scorecard and connect your AI. About a minute.

Also: Claude Code · Cursor · Codex

Then ask your AI: use the Supplier Evaluation Scorecard skill

Details

Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.

Add Ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.

Supplier Evaluation ScorecardStart free

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by hoavdc/codexkit in skills/codexkit-supplier-evaluation/SKILL.md and read by Ahel’s review.

When to Use

  • During quarterly or annual supplier performance reviews
  • When selecting vendors for new sourcing decisions
  • When consolidating or rationalizing the supplier base
  • When a supplier's performance triggers a review

Procedure

Step 1 — Define Evaluation Criteria

CriterionWeightMeasurement
Quality30%Defect rate, inspection pass rate, returns
Delivery25%On-time delivery %, lead time variance
Cost20%Price competitiveness, total cost of ownership
Responsiveness15%Communication speed, issue resolution time
Sustainability10%ESG compliance, certifications, carbon footprint

Adjust weights based on industry and strategic priorities.

Step 2 — Score Each Criterion

ScoreLevelDescription
5ExcellentExceeds expectations consistently
4GoodMeets expectations with occasional excellence
3AcceptableMeets minimum standards
2Below AverageFrequent issues, requires monitoring
1UnacceptableConsistent failures, action required

Step 3 — Calculate Weighted Total

Weighted Score = Σ (Score × Weight)

Step 4 — Tier Classification

Weighted ScoreTierRelationship Strategy
4.5–5.0StrategicLong-term partnership, innovation collaboration
3.5–4.4PreferredStable relationship, volume commitment
2.5–3.4ApprovedTransactional, competitive bidding
< 2.5ConditionalImprovement plan required, phase-out risk

Step 5 — Action Plan

For Conditional and low-Approved suppliers:

  1. Issue corrective action request (CAR)
  2. Define improvement targets with timeline
  3. Schedule re-evaluation in 90 days
  4. Identify backup supplier if no improvement

Inputs

InputRequiredFormat
Supplier name and categoryYesText
Performance dataYesMetrics per criterion
Contract/spend dataRecommendedAnnual spend, contract terms
Previous evaluationRecommendedPrior scorecard if available

Output

## Supplier Evaluation — [Supplier Name] — [Period]

### Scorecard

| Criterion | Weight | Score | Weighted |
|-----------|--------|-------|----------|
| Quality | 30% | 4 | 1.20 |
| Delivery | 25% | 3 | 0.75 |
| Cost | 20% | 4 | 0.80 |
| Responsiveness | 15% | 5 | 0.75 |
| Sustainability | 10% | 3 | 0.30 |
| **Total** | **100%** | | **3.80** |

### Tier: PREFERRED (3.80 / 5.0)

### Improvement Areas
1. Delivery: OTD dropped to 88% (target: 95%) — root cause: warehouse capacity
2. Sustainability: No ISO 14001 certification yet — expected Q3

### Action Plan
| Action | Owner | Deadline |
|--------|-------|----------|
| Improve OTD to 95% | Supplier ops team | 90 days |
| Submit ISO 14001 timeline | Supplier quality | 60 days |
| Re-evaluate | Procurement | Q3 |

Definition of Done

  • All criteria scored with evidence
  • Weighted total calculated
  • Tier classification assigned
  • Improvement areas identified for scores ≤ 3
  • Action plan with owners and deadlines for Conditional/low-Approved

Examples

Prompt

Evaluate our packaging supplier FastPack Ltd for Q1.
Quality: 96% pass rate (4/5), Delivery: 88% OTD (3/5), Cost: competitive (4/5),
Responsiveness: excellent (5/5), Sustainability: no ISO 14001 (3/5).
Generate the scorecard and improvement plan.

Quality Criteria

  • Data sources and assumptions are explicitly stated
  • Calculations are reproducible from provided inputs
  • Visualizations or tables have clear labels, units, and time ranges
  • Caveats and confidence levels are documented for estimates

Verification (4C)

CheckQuestion
CorrectnessAre formulas, aggregations, and statistical methods applied correctly?
CompletenessDoes the analysis cover all requested metrics and time ranges?
Context-fitAre the chosen metrics relevant to the business question being answered?
ConsequenceIf this data were used for a decision today, what blind spots remain?

Edge Cases

  • Missing or incomplete data — Document gaps and their potential impact on conclusions. Provide ranges instead of point estimates.
  • Outliers skewing results — Report with and without outliers. Document the decision to include or exclude.
  • Changing data definitions mid-period — Split analysis at the change boundary and note the schema difference.

Changelog

  • v1.0.0 — Initial release

Signals

GitHub stars
25
Forks
13
Last commit
Oct 2026
Advanced
Item type
skill
Key
codexkit-supplier-evaluation
Source
github.com/hoavdc/codexkit