# ai-go-no-go

Performs AI-powered Go/No-Go analysis on tender and RFP documents against your company profile and a structured decision framework. Use this skill whenever a user uploads tender documents, RFP packages, or ITT files and wants to determine whether to bid. Also trigger when users say "should we bid on this", "analyze this tender", "go no-go", "bid decision", "evaluate this RFP opportunity", or upload multiple procurement documents for assessment. Works with any company by analyzing their website and matching against tender requirements.

This file is the Agent Skills standard package flattened for clients that take instructions rather than a Skill folder. Keep workflow files in Instructions. Upload business source documents and optional assets as Knowledge only when needed.

## SKILL.md

# AI Go/No-Go Tender Analyzer

Analyzes uploaded tender/RFP documents against a company's profile and a structured Go/No-Go decision framework to produce an actionable bid/no-bid recommendation with evidence-based scoring.

## Works Well With

- **Compliance Matrix Builder** - Run after Go/No-Go to extract every requirement from the tender into a structured matrix
- **Competitor Intelligence** - Research competitors identified during the Go/No-Go to inform bid strategy

## How This Skill Works

This skill takes two primary inputs: a company's website URL (or company profile) and one or more tender documents. It evaluates the opportunity through seven weighted categories and produces a scored recommendation with document-level evidence for every finding.

## Reference Files

Before starting any analysis, read the reference files:

- `references/go-no-go-framework.md` - The scoring framework with seven weighted categories, scoring guidance, and decision thresholds. Users should customize this to match their risk appetite and organizational priorities.

If the user has not provided a company URL or profile, ask for one before proceeding. The company profile is essential -- without it, the analysis is guesswork.

## Supported Input Formats

- `.pdf` - Tender documents, annexes, schedules
- `.xlsx` / `.csv` - Requirements matrices, pricing schedules, evaluation criteria
- `.docx` - Tender narratives, terms and conditions, scope documents
- `.txt` - Plain text extracts or notes

Tender packages often contain multiple documents. Accept and process all of them. If the user references a number of documents (e.g., "10 tender documents"), confirm you have received all of them before starting analysis.

## Workflow

### Step 1: Build the Company Profile

If the user provides a company URL, use web search/fetch to understand:
- Products and services offered
- Target market and industry focus
- Deployment model (SaaS, on-prem, hybrid)
- Geographic presence and data residency capabilities
- Key certifications and compliance posture
- Notable customers and case studies

If the user provides a capabilities document or company profile instead, use that as the primary source. Summarize the company profile back to the user for confirmation before proceeding.

### Step 2: Ingest and Summarize the Tender

Read through all provided tender documents. Produce a brief tender overview covering:

- Issuing organization
- Opportunity name / reference number
- Submission deadline
- Estimated contract value (stated or implied)
- Contract duration
- Sector / industry
- Evaluation methodology (if stated)
- Number of documents reviewed

### Step 3: Extract Key Tender Intelligence

Scan all documents to answer these questions with direct evidence. For each answer, cite the specific document and section where the information was found.

**Budget & Commercial:**
- What is the stated budget or estimated financial scope? If not explicitly stated, note that.
- What is the contract term and any renewal options?

**Key Dates:**
- List all critical dates: submission deadline, Q&A period close, clarification windows, decision date, project start date, implementation milestones.

**Technical Requirements:**
- Hosting requirements: Is on-premise hosting mandatory, preferred, or flexible?
- Data residency: Must data be stored in specific geographic locations?
- Integration points: What systems, platforms, or APIs must the solution integrate with?
- Key functional requirements: What are the core capabilities being sought?

**Security & Compliance:**
- Summarize mandatory InfoSec requirements including certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2, PCI DSS, etc.), data handling protocols, and security standards.
- Note any regulatory framework requirements specific to the jurisdiction.

**Legal & Contractual:**
- Flag any notable liability, indemnity, SLA, or penalty clauses.
- Note any unusual or onerous contractual terms.

For each finding, include a reference in this format:
> Reference: [Document name], [Section/Page], "[Brief quote]"

### Step 4: Score Against the Go/No-Go Framework

Read `references/go-no-go-framework.md`. Work through every category and question using:
- The tender documents as the primary source
- The company profile from Step 1 as the capability baseline

For each question:
1. State the question
2. Provide your assessment based on evidence from the documents and company profile
3. Assign a score from 1-5 per the scoring guidance
4. Cite the relevant source (document section or company profile element)

Questions that require internal knowledge the user would have (team bandwidth, relationship strength, internal priorities) should be flagged as **REQUIRES USER INPUT** with a clear note about what information is needed. Do not guess.

### Step 5: Calculate the Recommendation

1. Calculate the weighted score per category
2. Calculate the overall weighted percentage
3. Apply the decision thresholds from the framework:
   - **80%+ = Strong Go** - Pursue with confidence
   - **65-79% = Conditional Go** - Pursue, but address flagged risks
   - **50-64% = Executive Review** - Escalate; significant risks present
   - **Below 50% = No-Go** - Do not pursue unless strategic override justified
4. Identify any hard deal-breakers (requirements the company fundamentally cannot meet)
5. List all items flagged as REQUIRES USER INPUT that could materially shift the score

### Step 6: Output the Report

Present using this structure:

```
## AI Go/No-Go Analysis Report

### 1. Company Profile Summary
Brief summary of the company's relevant capabilities and positioning

### 2. Tender Overview
Issuing org, opportunity name, deadline, value, duration, sector, documents reviewed

### 3. Key Tender Intelligence
Budget & Commercial | Key Dates | Technical Requirements | Security & Compliance | Legal
Each with document references

### 4. Go/No-Go Scorecard
Table: Category | Weight | Score (1-5) | Weighted Score | Key Evidence
Total weighted score and decision threshold

### 5. Deal-Breaker Assessment
Any mandatory requirements the company cannot meet, with evidence

### 6. Items Requiring Your Input
Questions that need internal knowledge to answer accurately, with context on how they could shift the score

### 7. Overall Recommendation
- Decision: [Strong Go / Conditional Go / Executive Review / No-Go]
- Confidence level based on information completeness
- Top 3-5 risks
- If Go or Conditional Go: 2-3 potential win themes based on strongest capability alignment

### 8. Suggested Next Steps
Actionable next steps based on the recommendation
```

## Output Format

- Quick assessments: structured markdown directly in conversation
- Formal reports: create as `.md` file and present to user
- If user requests DOCX or PDF, use the appropriate creation skill

## Important Principles

- This skill provides a structured, evidence-based recommendation. It does not make the final bid decision -- that remains with the bid team and leadership.
- Always surface uncertainty. If a tender document is vague or the company profile lacks detail in an area, say so explicitly rather than assuming.
- Cite everything. Every score should trace back to either a document reference or a company capability.
- If the tender contains evaluation criteria with explicit weightings, include them in the report since they should directly influence where the bid team invests effort.
- When in doubt, flag it. Better to surface a potential risk the user can dismiss than to miss something that costs them the bid.

## Go No Go Framework

Source: `references/go-no-go-framework.md`

# Go/No-Go Decision Framework

Structured qualification framework for evaluating tender and RFP opportunities. Each category is weighted and each question scored 1-5.

Customize these categories, questions, weights, and scoring guidance to match your organization's priorities and risk appetite.

---

## Decision Thresholds

| Weighted Score | Decision |
|---|---|
| 80%+ | **Strong Go** - Pursue with confidence |
| 65-79% | **Conditional Go** - Pursue, but address flagged risks before committing resources |
| 50-64% | **Executive Review Required** - Escalate; significant risks present |
| Below 50% | **No-Go** - Do not pursue unless strategic override is justified |

---

## Category 1: Strategic Alignment
**Weight: 20%**

| # | Question | Scoring Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Does the issuing organization match our Ideal Customer Profile? | 5 = Perfect ICP match. 3 = Adjacent fit. 1 = Outside ICP entirely. |
| 1.2 | What is the strategic value of this client? | 5 = Marquee logo, opens new market or vertical. 3 = Solid client, no strategic premium. 1 = Low-value, no strategic upside. |
| 1.3 | Is there growth potential beyond this initial contract? | 5 = Clear multi-year expansion path, cross-sell opportunities. 3 = Possible but unconfirmed. 1 = One-off engagement, no follow-on. |
| 1.4 | Does this align with our current go-to-market priorities? | 5 = Core focus area. 3 = Adjacent to priorities. 1 = Completely outside current strategy. |

---

## Category 2: RFP Origins & Relationship
**Weight: 10%**

| # | Question | Scoring Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | How did we become aware of this RFP? | 5 = We helped shape the RFP or were invited directly. 3 = Warm introduction or known contact. 1 = Cold/public notice, no prior engagement. |
| 2.2 | What is the strength of our existing relationship with the buyer? | 5 = Trusted advisor status with decision-makers. 3 = Some contacts, limited depth. 1 = No relationship. |
| 2.3 | Do we have executive sponsorship or a champion inside the organization? | 5 = Active champion at decision-making level. 3 = Mid-level contact who is supportive. 1 = No internal advocate. |
| 2.4 | How much insight do we have into their decision process and evaluation criteria? | 5 = Deep understanding of process and key players. 3 = Some visibility. 1 = Completely opaque. |

---

## Category 3: Competitive Landscape
**Weight: 10%**

| # | Question | Scoring Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 3.1 | Are we the incumbent, or are we trying to unseat an existing vendor? | 5 = We are the incumbent. 3 = No incumbent / greenfield. 1 = Strong incumbent in place. |
| 3.2 | Do we know who else is likely bidding? | 5 = Yes, and we have clear advantages over them. 3 = Some idea of competitors. 1 = No visibility into competitive field. |
| 3.3 | Can we clearly articulate why we are different and better for this specific opportunity? | 5 = Strong, defensible differentiators. 3 = Some differentiation but not unique. 1 = Commodity position, no clear edge. |

---

## Category 4: Resource Requirements
**Weight: 15%**

| # | Question | Scoring Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 4.1 | Does our proposal team have bandwidth to deliver a quality response within the deadline? | 5 = Team has capacity and timeline is comfortable. 3 = Tight but manageable. 1 = Team is overloaded; quality will suffer. |
| 4.2 | Is the submission deadline realistic given the RFP complexity? | 5 = Generous timeline. 3 = Achievable but requires focus. 1 = Unreasonably tight. |
| 4.3 | Can we reuse significant existing content, or does this require mostly bespoke drafting? | 5 = 70%+ reusable from content library. 3 = 40-60% reusable. 1 = Mostly bespoke, heavy lift. |
| 4.4 | Are the required SMEs available to contribute within the response window? | 5 = All key SMEs available and committed. 3 = Most available with some gaps. 1 = Critical SMEs unavailable. |
| 4.5 | Can our delivery/implementation team realistically fulfill this if we win? | 5 = Standard deployment, proven playbook. 3 = Feasible with adaptation. 1 = Would require significant new capability or hiring. |

---

## Category 5: Commercial Viability
**Weight: 15%**

| # | Question | Scoring Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 5.1 | Is there a clear, realistic budget stated or implied? | 5 = Budget stated and aligns with our pricing. 3 = Budget vague but likely in range. 1 = No budget visibility, or clearly below our floor. |
| 5.2 | Is the contract term long enough to justify the sales and onboarding cost? | 5 = Multi-year contract (3+ years). 3 = 1-2 year term. 1 = Sub-12 months with no commitment. |
| 5.3 | Are the pricing and commercial terms flexible enough for a viable deal? | 5 = Standard terms, room for negotiation. 3 = Some rigid terms but workable. 1 = Highly restrictive or unfavorable payment terms. |
| 5.4 | What is the estimated Annual Contract Value? Does it meet our minimum deal size? | 5 = Significantly above minimum. 3 = At or near minimum. 1 = Below minimum deal threshold. |

---

## Category 6: Requirement Fit
**Weight: 20%**

| # | Question | Scoring Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 6.1 | How closely do our core capabilities match the stated technical requirements? | 5 = Near-complete coverage out of the box. 3 = Covers majority, gaps in non-critical areas. 1 = Major gaps in core requirements. |
| 6.2 | Does the required deployment model match what we offer? | 5 = Exact match. 3 = Flexible, can accommodate. 1 = Mandatory requirement we cannot meet (potential deal-breaker). |
| 6.3 | Can we meet the integration requirements? | 5 = All integrations available or straightforward. 3 = Most available, 1-2 require custom work. 1 = Multiple complex integrations not supported. |
| 6.4 | What level of customization is required beyond standard configuration? | 5 = Standard config covers requirements. 3 = Moderate customization needed. 1 = Heavy custom development required. |
| 6.5 | Can we meet the stated implementation timeline? | 5 = Comfortably within timeline. 3 = Achievable but tight. 1 = Timeline unrealistic for scope. |
| 6.6 | Do we have relevant case studies or references in this sector? | 5 = Multiple strong references in same sector and similar scale. 3 = Some relevant references. 1 = No references in sector. |

---

## Category 7: Legal, Security & Compliance
**Weight: 10%**

| # | Question | Scoring Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 7.1 | Do we hold the mandatory certifications required? | 5 = All certifications held and current. 3 = Most held, 1 in progress. 1 = Missing critical certifications. |
| 7.2 | Can we meet the data residency and sovereignty requirements? | 5 = Fully supported in required regions. 3 = Supported with minor changes. 1 = Cannot meet residency requirements. |
| 7.3 | Are the contract terms within acceptable range? | 5 = Standard terms, minor negotiation expected. 3 = Some aggressive terms but negotiable. 1 = Onerous terms that legal would likely reject. |
| 7.4 | Do we meet the regulatory and compliance framework requirements? | 5 = Fully compliant. 3 = Mostly compliant, minor gaps addressable. 1 = Significant compliance gaps. |

---

## Customization Notes

- Add, remove, or reword questions to match your industry and risk appetite.
- Adjust weights to reflect what matters most to your organization. Heavily regulated industries may weight Legal & Compliance higher. Services firms may weight Resource Requirements higher.
- Some questions require internal knowledge (team bandwidth, relationship strength, competitive intel). The skill flags these as "REQUIRES USER INPUT" rather than guessing.
- If your company has hard constraints (e.g., SaaS-only, no on-prem), note question 6.2 as a potential deal-breaker and adjust accordingly.