From se-skills
This skill should be used when the user asks to "respond to an RFP", "draft an RFP response", "generate a bid response", "answer an RFI", "write a technical proposal response", or provides an RFP/RFI document that needs technical answers mapped against open source capabilities and past customization cases. Includes Go/No-Go qualification, win theme generation, and Feature-Advantage-Benefit mapping.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/se-skills:rfp-responseThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Parse a customer RFP/RFI document, match each requirement against the OSS feature matrix and historical case library, and generate a categorized response draft with traceable sources and explicit gap annotations.
Parse a customer RFP/RFI document, match each requirement against the OSS feature matrix and historical case library, and generate a categorized response draft with traceable sources and explicit gap annotations.
The following artifacts must exist before running this skill:
knowledge/oss-feature-matrix.md (output of /oss-analyze)knowledge/cases/ (output of /case-import)If missing, prompt the SE to run the corresponding Phase 0 skill first. The skill can run with only the feature matrix (without cases) in degraded mode, but case matching will be unavailable.
Before investing time in a full response, run a qualification check. If the SE provides enough context, score the opportunity:
| Pillar | Score | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Solution Fit | /25 | Estimated coverage score. <50% is a red flag; <60% warns. |
| Relationship | /25 | Do we have a champion inside? Is this a cold RFP? |
| Competitive Landscape | /25 | Is the RFP wired for a competitor? Look for proprietary language. |
| Strategic Value | /25 | Does this align with ICP, region, and profitability goals? |
Scoring rubric (total /100):
Automatic NO-GO conditions (hard stops — do not proceed regardless of other scores):
Red flags that suggest walking away:
Output the qualification verdict before proceeding. If the SE chooses to proceed despite red flags, note the elevated risk. If any automatic NO-GO condition is met, recommend declining and explain why.
Before drafting any response text, define 3-5 win themes following the Resonate → Differentiate → Substantiate structure:
Theme: <What the buyer needs> → <What we deliver> → <Why they should believe us (proof)>
Each theme maps to at least one customer priority surfaced during the Go/No-Go skim. (Customer priorities will be extracted in detail during Step 2 — win themes can be refined afterward.) Win themes guide all downstream response writing — every answer should reinforce at least one theme.
Read the RFP document (supports .pdf, .docx, .md, .txt) and extract a structured requirement list.
For each requirement, extract:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| id | Auto-incrementing: R001, R002, ... |
| category | Functional / Non-functional / Integration / Security / SLA / Other |
| summary | One-sentence summary |
| detail | Full original text |
| keywords | Technical keywords extracted from the original text |
| customer_priority | Inferred priority to the buyer (critical / high / medium / low) — based on emphasis in the RFP. Default to medium if unclear. |
For each requirement, search as follows:
2a. Search the feature matrix
In knowledge/oss-feature-matrix.md, match by:
2b. Search the case library
In knowledge/cases/, match by:
2c. Output match results per requirement
R001: <summary>
├─ OSS coverage: <match from feature matrix> | no match
├─ Case coverage: <case file name> | no match
└─ Status: COVERED_OSS | COVERED_CUSTOM | PARTIAL | GAP
Output outputs/rfp/<customer>-rfp-draft.md:
---
skill: rfp-response
date: <YYYY-MM-DD>
inputs: <rfp-file>, knowledge/oss-feature-matrix.md, knowledge/cases/
status: draft
---
# RFP Response Draft — <Customer Name>
## Go/No-Go Verdict
| Pillar | Score | Note |
|--------|-------|------|
| Solution Fit | /25 | |
| Relationship | /25 | |
| Competitive Landscape | /25 | |
| Strategic Value | /25 | |
| **Total** | **/100** | ≥75 GO \| 60–74 GO WITH RISK \| <60 NO-GO |
| **Verdict** | **GO / NO-GO / GO WITH RISK** | |
## Win Themes
> Every response reinforces at least one of these themes
| # | Theme | Buyer Need | Our Delivery | Proof |
|---|-------|------------|-------------|-------|
| 1 | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| 2 | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| 3 | ... | ... | ... | ... |
## Coverage Overview
| Metric | Count | Percentage |
|--------|-------|------------|
| Total requirements | N | 100% |
| OSS covered | N | X% |
| Case covered | N | X% |
| Partial | N | X% |
| GAP | N | X% |
## Responses
### R001 — <Requirement Summary>
**Category**: <category>
**Priority**: critical | high | medium | low
**Status**: COVERED_OSS | COVERED_CUSTOM | PARTIAL | GAP
**Win Theme**: <which theme this reinforces, or "—">
**Feature**: <What capability addresses this requirement>
**Advantage**: <What makes our approach better/different>
**Benefit**: <What tangible outcome this produces for the buyer>
**Response**:
<Concrete, buyer-language response content connecting feature → advantage → benefit>
**Source**: <feature matrix row / case file path>
**Confidence**: high | medium | low
### R002 — ...
...
## GAP Registry
> Requirements with no match — needs SME confirmation
| ID | Requirement | Priority | Recommended Handling |
|----|-------------|----------|---------------------|
| R0xx | ... | high | Product team to confirm roadmap |
| R0xx | ... | medium | Evaluate customization feasibility |
## Executive Summary
> Write last. Lift the strongest proof points and sharpest language from the completed responses.
**Decision Statement**: <1-2 sentences: the outcome + why you are the credible choice>
**Customer Situation**: <Prove you understand their world — 2-3 sentences>
**Our Approach**: <High-level solution mapped to their top 3 criteria>
**Differentiators**: <3-5 bullets with proof — pulled from win themes>
**Delivery & Risk**: <How execution will be de-risked>
**Next Step**: <Clear path forward>
After generating the draft, guide the SE through structured review:
Gate 1 — Compliance & Coverage:
Gate 2 — Technical Accuracy:
Gate 3 — Narrative & Proof:
reviewed when doneGuides creation, editing, and verification of skills for AI coding agents using test-driven development with subagent scenarios. Use when authoring or debugging skills.
npx claudepluginhub futuretea/se-skills