Compare vendors on a matrix that decides instead of decorates — the criteria weighted before the demos (so the shiny demo can't rewrite them), the evidence-based scoring with the marketing-vs-verified flags, the total-cost row that includes switching, and the reference-check questions that get honest answers. Use when asked compare these vendors/tools, build the selection matrix, the demo wowed us now what, or make this procurement decision defensible. Produces the weighted matrix, the scoring evidence rules, the TCO row, and the reference-call script.
Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.
Use vendor-comparison-matrix to build a defensible procurement matrix for [vendor candidates and incumbent] based on [user requirements with must-haves/nice-to-haves, weight owners, and switching context]. Provide a weighted matrix with pre-demo criteria, an evidence-scored grid using claimed/observed/verified flags, a TCO row including both entry and exit costs, and a piercing reference-call script.
Required inputs
[vendor candidates and incumbent]
[user requirements with must-haves/nice-to-haves, weight owners, and switching context]
User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗
SKILL.md
name: vendor-comparison-matrixdescription: "Compare vendors on a matrix that decides instead of decorates — the criteria weighted before the demos (so the shiny demo can't rewrite them), the evidence-based scoring with the marketing-vs-verified flags, the total-cost row that includes switching, and the reference-check questions that get honest answers. Use when asked compare these vendors/tools, build the selection matrix, the demo wowed us now what, or make this procurement decision defensible. Produces the weighted matrix, the scoring evidence rules, the TCO row, and the reference-call script."
Vendor Comparison Matrix Skill
Vendor selections get decided by the best demo and then justified by a matrix built afterward — criteria reverse-engineered to bless the favorite, which is how the shiny interface wins over the boring integration that actually mattered. The honest matrix inverts the order: criteria and weights are set before the demos (from the requirements, with the must-have/nice-to-have line drawn), scores cite evidence (the competitive-scan-lite claimed/observed/verified flags), the cost row is total cost (license + implementation + training + the switching cost both ways), and references get called with questions designed to pierce the happy-customer screen.
What This Skill Produces
The weighted matrix — criteria × weights, set pre-demo, with the must-have gate separate from the scored nice-to-haves
The evidence-scored grid — every score flagged: 📢 vendor-claimed / 👁 demo-observed / ✅ verified (trial, reference, docs)
The TCO row — the all-in number per vendor: license, implementation, training, integration, and the exit cost
The reference script — the questions that get past the curated happy customer
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
The requirements, from the users — what the actual users need done (not the feature wishlist — the jobs); must-haves separated from nice-to-haves before any vendor contact (proposal-skeleton honesty applied to procurement)
The vendor set — the candidates, including the incumbent/do-nothing option scored on the same matrix
The weights' owners — who says integration matters more than UI? Weights are decisions with owners, set in a room, pre-demo
The switching context — what leaving the current tool costs (data migration, retraining, the vendor-breakup-email terms) — TCO's most-forgotten row
Framework: The Matrix Rules
Criteria before demos, weights before scores: the matrix is built and weighted from requirements before vendor contact — because demos are professionally designed to rewrite your criteria ("we didn't know we needed that!" is the demo working as intended; new criteria discovered mid-process go through the weight-owners, explicitly). Must-haves gate (fail one = out, regardless of sparkle); nice-to-haves score.
Scores carry evidence flags: vendor-claimed (📢, worth little until verified), demo-observed (👁, better — but demos are their golden path, per demo-script — you're watching their rehearsed best), verified (✅ — your trial on your data, the reference's testimony, the docs' actual limits). A matrix full of 📢 scores is the vendor's marketing, formatted as your diligence.
The trial beats the demo: for the finalists, the structured trial — your data, your workflow, your users, 2 weeks, with the success criteria written first (survey-design-basics pre-commitment logic) — converts 👁 to ✅ on the criteria that matter most. Vendors who resist a trial on the load-bearing features are answering the question in their own way.
TCO includes both switching costs: license + implementation + training + integration + the cost of leaving the current tool + — the row everyone omits — the cost of leaving THIS vendor later (export formats, contract terms, the lock-in read). The cheap license with proprietary data formats is quoting you the entry price of a room with expensive exits.
References get piercing questions: the vendor's references are curated — the script compensates: "What surprised you after go-live?" · "What would you do differently in implementation?" · "When something broke, walk me through the support experience" · "Who shouldn't buy this?" (the honest reference answers that one; the scripted one stumbles) — and the off-list move: find a customer they didn't offer ([the user-community forum is the uncurated reference pool]).