Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

vendor-due-diligence(供应商尽职调查)

vendor-due-diligence 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

vendor-due-diligence 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 57,864。

总安装 423周安装 18GitHub Stars 103下载 148核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:vendor-due-diligence(供应商尽职调查)
来源仓库:https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/vendor-due-diligence
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill vendor-due-diligence
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill vendor-due-diligence

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

查找、检索和筛选相关信息,快速定位候选结果。适用于在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中根据关键词或任务场景进行信息筛选的场景。通过 GitHub 安装,结合来源仓库和原始 README 核验具体用法。安装前需确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

vendor-due-diligence 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/vendor-due-diligence

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill vendor-due-dilig…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

vendor-due-diligence 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill vendor-due-diligence。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

vendor-due-diligence 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

vendor-due-diligence 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

vendor-due-diligence 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

vendor-due-diligence 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 423 次,近一周安装 18 次,下载 148 次,GitHub 103 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

vendor-due-diligence 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
vendor-due-diligence

供应商尽职调查 · 本页

423103只读未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

⚠️ EXPERIMENTAL — This skill is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does NOT constitute legal advice. All responsibility for usage rests with the user. Consult qualified legal professionals before acting on any output.

Vendor Due Diligence Skill

Overview

Production-ready framework for assessing IT service providers, technology vendors, and third-party partners. Provides a Three-Phase Assessment (Initial Screening, Detailed Assessment, Final Evaluation), Multi-Factor Risk Scoring across 6 dimensions with critical-service weighting, regulatory compliance checklists for 8 frameworks, vendor comparison matrices, and ongoing monitoring with Early Warning Indicators. Designed for procurement teams, legal counsel, IT security, and compliance officers evaluating technology vendors.

Table of Contents

Tools

1. Vendor Risk Scorer (scripts/vendor_risk_scorer.py)

Scores a vendor across 6 risk dimensions based on questionnaire responses. Calculates weighted composite score with 2x multiplier for critical services. Generates risk heat map and overall recommendation.

# Score a vendor from questionnaire responses
python scripts/vendor_risk_scorer.py vendor_responses.json

# JSON output for dashboards
python scripts/vendor_risk_scorer.py vendor_responses.json --json

# Flag as critical service (2x weight on security + compliance)
python scripts/vendor_risk_scorer.py vendor_responses.json --critical

2. Vendor Comparison (scripts/vendor_comparison.py)

Takes multiple vendor risk assessment JSONs and generates a side-by-side comparison matrix. Ranks vendors by composite score and recommends preferred vendor with rationale.

# Compare two vendors
python scripts/vendor_comparison.py vendor_a.json vendor_b.json

# Compare multiple vendors with JSON output
python scripts/vendor_comparison.py vendor_a.json vendor_b.json vendor_c.json --json

# Compare with critical service weighting
python scripts/vendor_comparison.py vendor_a.json vendor_b.json --critical

Reference Guides

ReferencePurpose
references/risk_assessment_framework.md6-dimension scoring system, weighting methodology, composite score interpretation
references/regulatory_checklists.mdPre-built compliance checklists for GDPR, DORA, NIS2, SOX, PCI DSS, ISO 27001/SOC 2, HIPAA, FedRAMP
references/monitoring_framework.mdQuarterly reviews, Early Warning Indicators, KPI metrics, risk mitigation strategies, onboarding checklists

Workflows

Workflow 1: Three-Phase Vendor Assessment

Phase 1: Initial Screening (Days 1-5)

  1. Gather basic vendor information (company profile, financial health, certifications)
  2. Run vendor_risk_scorer.py with preliminary data for initial risk classification
  3. Check applicable regulatory frameworks from regulatory_checklists.md
  4. Decision gate: Proceed to detailed assessment or reject early

Phase 2: Detailed Assessment (Days 5-15)

  1. Issue comprehensive vendor questionnaire covering all 6 risk dimensions
  2. Run vendor_risk_scorer.py with complete questionnaire responses
  3. Execute regulatory compliance checklists for all applicable frameworks
  4. Request supporting documentation (SOC 2 reports, pen test results, financials)
  5. Conduct reference checks and public record searches

Phase 3: Final Evaluation (Days 15-20)

  1. Run vendor_comparison.py if evaluating multiple vendors
  2. Compile Vendor Risk Report with dimension breakdowns
  3. Document gaps and required mitigations from risk_assessment_framework.md
  4. Present recommendation (Approve / Approve with Conditions / Reject)
  5. If approved, generate onboarding checklist from monitoring_framework.md

Workflow 2: Competitive Vendor Selection

  1. Define requirements -- Document must-have and nice-to-have criteria mapped to risk dimensions
  2. Screen candidates -- Run initial scoring on all candidates; eliminate any with Critical risk
  3. Deep-dive finalists -- Full 6-dimension assessment on top 2-3 vendors
  4. Compare -- Run vendor_comparison.py on finalist assessments
  5. Negotiate -- Use risk findings as leverage in contract negotiations (integrates with tech-contract-negotiation skill)
  6. Select and onboard -- Approve preferred vendor; set up monitoring per monitoring_framework.md

Workflow 3: Ongoing Vendor Monitoring

  1. Quarterly review -- Re-score vendor using updated data; compare against baseline
  2. Event-triggered review -- Re-assess on M&A, breaches, regulatory changes, or leadership turnover
  3. Annual re-assessment -- Full 6-dimension re-evaluation with updated questionnaire
  4. Early Warning response -- Monitor indicators from monitoring_framework.md; escalate per defined paths
  5. Exit planning -- If risk exceeds threshold, activate exit provisions and dual-source strategy

Troubleshooting

ProblemCauseSolution
All dimensions score 1 (Low Risk)Vendor self-reported optimistically on questionnaireCross-reference with SOC 2 reports, pen test results, and financial filings; adjust scores based on evidence
Composite score doesn't reflect known security issuesSecurity dimension not weighted for critical serviceRe-run with --critical flag to apply 2x multiplier on security and compliance dimensions
Comparison matrix shows all vendors tiedScoring inputs are too similar or too coarseRequest more granular data; use the 5-level scoring criteria from the risk framework to differentiate
Regulatory checklist seems incomplete for your industryOnly 8 frameworks are pre-builtCustomize checklists by adding industry-specific requirements as additional items
Vendor refuses to complete questionnaireVendor sees assessment as overly burdensomeShare only the dimensions relevant to their service scope; offer to accept SOC 2/ISO 27001 reports as partial substitutes
Risk score changed dramatically between quartersMajor event occurred (breach, M&A, leadership change)This is expected behavior; document the trigger event and follow the event-triggered review process

Success Criteria

  • Assessment Completeness: 100% of vendor assessments cover all 6 risk dimensions with evidence-backed scores
  • Timeline Adherence: Three-phase assessment completed within 20 business days for 90% of evaluations
  • Risk Prediction Accuracy: Vendors flagged as High/Critical risk experience 3x more incidents than Low risk vendors over 12 months
  • Regulatory Coverage: All applicable regulatory checklists completed with zero missed frameworks for 95% of assessments
  • Comparison Consistency: Vendor comparison rankings remain stable when re-scored by different assessors (inter-rater reliability > 85%)
  • Monitoring Compliance: 100% of quarterly reviews completed on schedule with documented findings
  • Early Warning Detection: 80%+ of vendor incidents preceded by at least one Early Warning Indicator flagged in monitoring

Scope & Limitations

This skill covers:

  • Multi-factor risk scoring across 6 dimensions (Financial, Operational, Compliance, Security, Reputational, Strategic) with critical-service weighting
  • Regulatory compliance checklists for GDPR, DORA, NIS2, SOX, PCI DSS, ISO 27001/SOC 2, HIPAA, and FedRAMP
  • Side-by-side vendor comparison with composite ranking and dimension-level analysis
  • Ongoing monitoring framework with quarterly reviews, Early Warning Indicators, and escalation paths
  • Risk mitigation strategies and onboarding checklists by risk level

This skill does NOT cover:

  • Real-time vendor monitoring dashboards, automated data feeds, or integration with GRC platforms (all input is via JSON files)
  • Financial auditing, forensic accounting, or detailed financial statement analysis of vendors (use the finance/financial-analyst skill)
  • Physical security assessments, on-site facility audits, or hardware supply chain verification
  • Legal review of vendor contracts or negotiation of terms (use the legal/tech-contract-negotiation skill)
  • Vendor relationship management, performance optimization, or strategic partnership development beyond risk assessment

Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternWhy It FailsBetter Approach
Relying solely on vendor self-assessment questionnairesVendors underreport risks; no independent verificationCross-reference questionnaire responses with SOC 2/ISO 27001 reports, pen test results, and public records
Applying the same weight to all dimensions regardless of service typeA payroll vendor and a marketing tool have different risk profilesUse --critical flag for critical services; adjust dimension weights based on service classification
Completing due diligence once and never revisitingVendor risk changes over time due to M&A, breaches, market shiftsImplement quarterly monitoring with annual re-assessment per the monitoring framework
Rejecting vendors for a single high-risk dimension without considering mitigationsEliminates potentially strong vendors with addressable gapsUse the gap analysis severity classification; require remediation plans for major concerns before final decision
Skipping the comparison matrix for sole-source procurementsMisses opportunity to benchmark the vendor against market standardsRun comparison against industry benchmarks or previous vendor assessments to establish a risk baseline

Tool Reference

scripts/vendor_risk_scorer.py

Score a vendor across 6 risk dimensions and generate an overall recommendation.

usage: vendor_risk_scorer.py [-h] [--json] [--critical]
                              input_file

positional arguments:
  input_file            Path to JSON file with vendor questionnaire responses

options:
  -h, --help            Show help message and exit
  --json                Output results as JSON
  --critical            Apply 2x weight to security and compliance
                        dimensions (for critical/essential services)

Outputs: 6-dimension risk scores (1-5 each), weighted composite score, risk level classification (Low/Moderate/High/Critical), overall recommendation (Approve/Approve with Conditions/Reject), dimension-level findings, and gap analysis.

scripts/vendor_comparison.py

Compare multiple vendors side-by-side and recommend preferred vendor.

usage: vendor_comparison.py [-h] [--json] [--critical]
                             input_files [input_files ...]

positional arguments:
  input_files           Paths to vendor assessment JSON files (minimum 2)

options:
  -h, --help            Show help message and exit
  --json                Output results as JSON
  --critical            Apply 2x weight to security and compliance
                        dimensions (for critical/essential services)

Outputs: Side-by-side comparison matrix, composite score ranking, per-dimension strength/weakness analysis, preferred vendor recommendation with rationale, and risk delta highlights.

平台分布

Codex

34.46%
按下载量换算51

Claude

31.04%
按下载量换算46

Cursor

18.33%
按下载量换算27

Gemini CLI

9.09%
按下载量换算13

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills