ai-vendor-evaluation

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

AI Vendor Evaluation

AI供应商评估

Version 1.0 | October 2025 | Based on $1.2M average AI spend analysis

版本1.0 | 2025年10月 | 基于平均120万美元AI投入分析

Overview

概述

This skill provides a systematic framework for evaluating AI vendors and solutions to avoid the costly mistakes that plague 95% of AI projects. Use when conducting vendor due diligence, evaluating proposals, negotiating contracts, or making strategic AI purchasing decisions.

Key capabilities:

Structured evaluation criteria for AI vendors
Red flag identification in proposals and demos
Pricing model analysis and fair market rates
Technical capability assessment
Contract term evaluation
Build vs buy decision framework

本工具提供了一套系统化的AI供应商及解决方案评估框架，可帮助避免95%的AI项目都会遭遇的代价高昂的错误。适用于开展供应商尽职调查、评估提案、谈判合同或制定AI采购战略决策等场景。

核心功能：

AI供应商结构化评估标准
提案与演示中的风险信号识别
定价模型分析及市场公允价格参考
技术能力评估
合同条款审核
自研vs采购决策框架

Quick Decision Tree

快速决策树

Start here to determine which references to read:

What stage are you in?

├─ Early exploration (multiple vendors being considered)
│  └─ Read: evaluation-criteria.md, use-case-fit.md
│     Use: scorecard-template.xlsx
│
├─ Evaluating specific proposal or demo
│  └─ Read: red-flags.md, technical-assessment.md
│     Check: pricing-models.md for pricing reasonableness
│
├─ Contract negotiation
│  └─ Read: contract-checklist.md, pricing-models.md
│     Reference: red-flags.md for problematic terms
│
├─ Build vs Buy decision
│  └─ Read: build-vs-buy.md, use-case-fit.md
│     Consider: Total cost of ownership from pricing-models.md
│
└─ Post-purchase review or audit
   └─ Read: evaluation-criteria.md, technical-assessment.md
      Assess: Whether vendor is delivering on promises

从这里开始，确定需要查阅的参考文档：

你处于哪个阶段？

├─ 早期筛选（考虑多家供应商）
│  └─ 查阅：evaluation-criteria.md, use-case-fit.md
│     使用：scorecard-template.xlsx
│
├─ 评估特定提案或演示
│  └─ 查阅：red-flags.md, technical-assessment.md
│     参考：pricing-models.md 判断价格合理性
│
├─ 合同谈判
│  └─ 查阅：contract-checklist.md, pricing-models.md
│     参考：red-flags.md 识别有问题的条款
│
├─ 自研vs采购决策
│  └─ 查阅：build-vs-buy.md, use-case-fit.md
│     考量：pricing-models.md 中的总拥有成本
│
└─ 采购后复盘或审计
   └─ 查阅：evaluation-criteria.md, technical-assessment.md
      评估：供应商是否兑现承诺

When to Use This Skill

适用场景

Trigger scenarios:

"Help me evaluate this AI vendor proposal"
"What should I look for in AI vendor demos?"
"Is this pricing reasonable for an AI solution?"
"Should we build or buy this AI capability?"
"What questions should I ask this AI vendor?"
"Help me compare these AI vendors"
"Review this AI contract for red flags"
"Conduct due diligence on this AI company"

触发场景：

"帮我评估这份AI供应商提案"
"AI供应商演示中我需要关注什么？"
"这个AI解决方案的价格合理吗？"
"我们应该自研还是采购这项AI能力？"
"我应该向AI供应商问哪些问题？"
"帮我对比这些AI供应商"
"审核这份AI合同，找出风险信号"
"对这家AI公司开展尽职调查"

Core Evaluation Framework

核心评估框架

Phase 1: Initial Screening

阶段1：初步筛选

Goal: Eliminate obviously problematic vendors before deep evaluation

Key questions:

Does the vendor have relevant domain experience?
Are there verifiable customer references?
Is the technology approach sound?
Are pricing and terms transparent?

Read:

references/red-flags.md

for disqualifying signals
Read:

references/use-case-fit.md

for domain fit assessment

目标：在深度评估前淘汰明显存在问题的供应商

关键问题：

供应商是否具备相关领域经验？
是否有可验证的客户参考案例？
技术方案是否可靠？
定价与条款是否透明？

查阅：

references/red-flags.md

了解淘汰信号
查阅：

references/use-case-fit.md

评估场景适配性

Phase 2: Deep Evaluation

阶段2：深度评估

Goal: Assess vendor capabilities systematically across all dimensions

Evaluation dimensions:

Technical capability - Can they actually deliver?
Business viability - Will they still exist in 2 years?
Pricing fairness - Are costs reasonable for value delivered?
Implementation risk - How likely is successful deployment?
Contract terms - Are legal terms acceptable?

Read:

references/evaluation-criteria.md

for comprehensive framework
Read:

references/technical-assessment.md

for technical evaluation
Read:

references/pricing-models.md

for pricing analysis
Use:

assets/scorecard-template.xlsx

to score vendors systematically

目标：从各维度系统性评估供应商能力

评估维度：

技术能力 - 他们是否真的能交付？
业务可持续性 - 两年后他们是否还能存续？
价格公允性 - 成本与交付价值是否匹配？
实施风险 - 成功部署的可能性有多大？
合同条款 - 法律条款是否可接受？

查阅：

references/evaluation-criteria.md

获取全面框架
查阅：

references/technical-assessment.md

开展技术评估
查阅：

references/pricing-models.md

进行价格分析
使用：

assets/scorecard-template.xlsx

对供应商进行系统性评分

Phase 3: Contract Negotiation

阶段3：合同谈判

Goal: Secure favorable terms and avoid costly traps

Critical areas:

Performance guarantees and SLAs
Data ownership and usage rights
Pricing structure and escalation terms
Exit clauses and data portability
Liability and indemnification

Read:

references/contract-checklist.md

for essential terms
Reference:

references/red-flags.md

for problematic contract patterns

目标：争取有利条款，避免代价高昂的陷阱

关键关注领域：

性能保障与SLA
数据所有权与使用权
定价结构与涨价条款
退出条款与数据可移植性
责任与赔偿

查阅：

references/contract-checklist.md

了解必备条款
参考：

references/red-flags.md

识别有问题的合同模式

Common Vendor Patterns

常见供应商类型

The Overpromiser

过度承诺型

Characteristics: Claims to solve everything, vague on technical details, aggressive sales tactics
Red flag: "Our AI can handle any use case"
Response: Demand specific technical explanations and verifiable references

特征：声称能解决所有问题，技术细节模糊，销售策略激进
风险信号："我们的AI能处理任何场景"
应对方式：要求提供具体技术说明和可验证的参考案例

The Feature Dumper

功能堆砌型

Characteristics: Long feature lists, complex pricing, unclear core value proposition
Red flag: Can't explain what problem they actually solve
Response: Force clarity on primary use case and success metrics

特征：功能列表冗长，定价复杂，核心价值主张不清晰
风险信号：无法解释他们实际解决的问题
应对方式：要求明确核心使用场景和成功指标

The Consultant in Disguise

伪装成软件的咨询公司

Characteristics: Software license + mandatory professional services
Red flag: Professional services cost more than software
Response: Assess true cost of ownership, consider if you're buying software or consulting

特征：软件许可证+强制专业服务
风险信号：专业服务成本高于软件
应对方式：评估总拥有成本，判断你到底是在买软件还是咨询服务

The Model Wrapper

模型包装商

Characteristics: Thin layer over OpenAI/Anthropic APIs with high markup
Red flag: No proprietary technology, just API access + UI
Response: Calculate cost of building similar solution in-house

Full pattern library: See

references/red-flags.md

特征：在OpenAI/Anthropic API外层套了简单界面，却收取高额溢价
风险信号：没有自研技术，只是API访问+UI
应对方式：计算自研类似解决方案的成本

完整类型库：详见

references/red-flags.md

Build vs Buy Decision Framework

自研vs采购决策框架

When to read this section: Before committing to vendor evaluation, determine if building in-house is better option.

Key factors:

Capability availability - Does suitable vendor solution exist?
Time to value - Buy: weeks-months, Build: months-years
Total cost - Consider 3-year TCO for both options
Strategic importance - Core competency? Build. Commodity? Buy.
Team capability - Do you have talent to build and maintain?

Read:

references/build-vs-buy.md

for detailed decision framework

何时阅读本节：在投入供应商评估前，判断自研是否是更好的选择。

关键因素：

方案可用性 - 是否存在合适的供应商解决方案？
价值交付周期 - 采购：数周-数月，自研：数月-数年
总成本 - 考量两种方案的3年总拥有成本
战略重要性 - 核心竞争力？选择自研。通用能力？选择采购。
团队能力 - 你是否拥有自研和维护的人才？

查阅：

references/build-vs-buy.md

获取详细决策框架

Using the Scorecard Template

评分卡模板使用说明

The vendor scorecard enables structured comparison across vendors.

To use:

Open
```
assets/scorecard-template.xlsx
```
List vendors to compare (up to 5)
Score each vendor on evaluation criteria (1-5 scale)
Review weighted scores and vendor comparison chart
Document decision rationale

Customization: Adjust weights based on priorities for your specific use case.

供应商评分卡可实现跨供应商的结构化对比。

使用步骤：

打开
```
assets/scorecard-template.xlsx
```
列出需要对比的供应商（最多5家）
按照评估标准为每个供应商评分（1-5分制）
查看加权得分和供应商对比图表
记录决策依据

自定义：根据你的具体场景优先级调整权重。

Reference Documents

参考文档

references/evaluation-criteria.md

Comprehensive scoring framework across all vendor evaluation dimensions. Includes specific questions to ask, what constitutes good/bad answers, and how to weight criteria for different use cases.

Use when: Conducting systematic vendor evaluation

覆盖所有供应商评估维度的综合评分框架。包含需要询问的具体问题、答案优劣的判断标准，以及不同场景下的权重调整方法。

适用场景：开展系统性供应商评估

references/red-flags.md

Catalog of warning signs indicating problematic vendors. Organized by category: technical red flags, business red flags, pricing red flags, contract red flags, and behavioral red flags.

Use when: Initial vendor screening or reviewing proposals

问题供应商的风险信号目录。按类别划分：技术风险信号、业务风险信号、定价风险信号、合同风险信号和行为风险信号。

适用场景：供应商初步筛选或提案审核

references/pricing-models.md

Guide to AI vendor pricing models (per-seat, usage-based, platform fees, etc.), fair market rates, what drives costs, and how to negotiate. Includes pricing red flags and total cost of ownership analysis.

Use when: Evaluating vendor pricing or negotiating contracts

AI供应商定价模型指南（按席位、按使用量、平台费用等），包含市场公允价格、成本驱动因素及谈判技巧。还包括定价风险信号和总拥有成本分析。

适用场景：评估供应商定价或合同谈判

references/technical-assessment.md

Framework for assessing technical capabilities: architecture review, model evaluation, integration complexity, scalability, security, and data handling. Includes specific technical questions to ask.

Use when: Deep technical evaluation of vendor capabilities

技术能力评估框架：架构审查、模型评估、集成复杂度、可扩展性、安全性和数据处理。包含需要询问的具体技术问题。

适用场景：对供应商能力开展深度技术评估

references/contract-checklist.md

Essential contract terms for AI vendor agreements: performance guarantees, data rights, pricing protection, exit terms, liability, and support commitments. Includes negotiation guidance.

Use when: Contract review or negotiation

AI供应商协议的必备合同条款：性能保障、数据权利、价格保护、退出条款、责任和支持承诺。包含谈判指导。

适用场景：合同审核或谈判

references/use-case-fit.md

Framework for assessing whether vendor solution actually fits your use case. Includes questions to ask yourself, questions to ask vendor, and warning signs of poor fit.

Use when: Initial vendor screening or use case definition

评估供应商解决方案是否适配你的场景的框架。包含自问问题、向供应商提出的问题，以及适配性不佳的风险信号。

适用场景：供应商初步筛选或场景定义

references/build-vs-buy.md

Decision framework for whether to build AI capability in-house vs purchasing vendor solution. Includes total cost analysis, capability assessment, and strategic considerations.

Use when: Before committing to vendor evaluation process

AI能力自研vs采购的决策框架。包含总成本分析、能力评估和战略考量。

适用场景：投入供应商评估流程前

Assets

资源

assets/scorecard-template.xlsx

Structured spreadsheet for vendor comparison with:

Evaluation criteria organized by category
Scoring system (1-5 scale) with descriptions
Weighted scoring based on priorities
Vendor comparison charts
Decision documentation section

Customize: Adjust criteria weights and add company-specific requirements

用于供应商对比的结构化电子表格，包含：

按类别组织的评估标准
带说明的1-5分制评分系统
基于优先级的加权评分
供应商对比图表
决策记录板块

自定义：调整标准权重，添加公司特定要求