Generates procurement requirements, vendor comparisons, evaluation criteria, contract term reviews, and acceptance criteria through agent team collaboration.
Execution Mode
Agent Team — 5 members communicate directly via SendMessage and cross-validate each other's work.
Agent Roster
| Agent | File | Role | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| requirements-definer | .claude/agents/requirements-definer.md |
Specifications, quantity, delivery, budget | general-purpose |
| vendor-comparator | .claude/agents/vendor-comparator.md |
Candidate research, comparison tables, SWOT | general-purpose |
| evaluation-designer | .claude/agents/evaluation-designer.md |
Scoring, weighting, evaluation process | general-purpose |
| contract-reviewer | .claude/agents/contract-reviewer.md |
Clauses, risks, SLA, negotiation | general-purpose |
| acceptance-builder | .claude/agents/acceptance-builder.md |
Inspection items, testing, pass criteria | general-purpose |
Workflow
Phase 1: Preparation (performed directly by the orchestrator)
- Extract from user input:
- Procurement target: Goods, software, services, construction, etc.
- Procurement context: New introduction, replacement, expansion, etc.
- Budget: Budget range or limit
- Timeline: Desired delivery date, project schedule
- Vendor candidates (optional): Vendors already under consideration
- Existing documents (optional): Existing specifications, contract drafts
- Create the
_workspace/directory in the project root - Organize the input and save to
_workspace/00_input.md - Determine the execution mode based on the request scope
Phase 2: Team Assembly and Execution
| Order | Task | Owner | Dependencies | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Requirements definition | definer | None | _workspace/01_requirements_spec.md |
| 2 | Vendor comparison | comparator | Task 1 | _workspace/02_vendor_comparison.md |
| 3a | Evaluation criteria | evaluator | Tasks 1, 2 | _workspace/03_evaluation_criteria.md |
| 3b | Contract review | contract | Tasks 1, 2 | _workspace/04_contract_review.md |
| 4 | Acceptance criteria | acceptance | Tasks 1, 3b | _workspace/05_acceptance_criteria.md |
Tasks 3a (evaluation) and 3b (contract) run in parallel.
Inter-team communication flow:
- definer completes → sends requirements/budget to comparator, priorities/criteria to evaluator, delivery/support terms to contract, must-have requirements/criteria to acceptance
- comparator completes → sends vendor info/comparison items to evaluator, license/clause highlights to contract
- contract completes → sends acceptance conditions/warranty to acceptance
- Orchestrator performs final cross-document consistency validation
Phase 3: Integration and Final Deliverables
- Verify all files in
_workspace/ - Cross-validation:
- All must-have requirements are reflected in acceptance criteria
- Evaluation criteria weight totals equal 100%
- Contract terms align with requirements/acceptance criteria
- Vendor comparison items map to requirements
- Generate procurement summary report at
_workspace/06_procurement_summary.md - Report the final summary to the user
Execution Modes by Scope
| User Request Pattern | Execution Mode | Agents Involved |
|---|---|---|
| "Create complete procurement documents" | Full Pipeline | All 5 |
| "Just write the requirements spec" | Spec Mode | definer solo |
| "Just compare vendors" | Comparison Mode | definer + comparator |
| "Just create evaluation criteria" | Evaluation Mode | definer + evaluator |
| "Review this contract" | Review Mode | contract solo |
| "Just create acceptance criteria" | Acceptance Mode | definer + acceptance |
Data Transfer Protocol
| Strategy | Method | Usage |
|---|---|---|
| File-based | _workspace/ directory |
Primary deliverable storage and sharing |
| Message-based | SendMessage | Real-time key information transfer, correction requests |
| Task-based | TaskCreate/TaskUpdate | Progress tracking, dependency management |
Error Handling
| Error Type | Strategy |
|---|---|
| Unclear procurement target | definer presents clarifying question list, works from answers |
| Insufficient vendor info | comparator provides RFI template when web search fails, requests user direct input |
| Budget undetermined | Estimate budget range based on market prices, proceed after user confirmation |
| Legal review needed | contract tags with "[Legal review needed]", warns cannot replace legal counsel |
| Agent failure | 1 retry → proceed without that deliverable if still failing, note in report |
Test Scenarios
Normal Flow
Prompt: "Create a procurement document set for cloud server hosting services. Budget is $500K/year and I want to compare AWS, Azure, and GCP." Expected Results:
- Spec: Compute/storage/network requirements, SLA requirements
- Comparison: 3-provider feature/price/support comparison, TCO analysis, SWOT
- Evaluation: Technical 40% / Price 30% / Support 20% / Reliability 10% scoring
- Contract: SLA clauses, data sovereignty, termination terms, negotiation points
- Acceptance: Infrastructure deployment acceptance, performance testing, SLA compliance verification
Existing File Flow
Prompt: "I already have a spec. Just create vendor comparison and evaluation criteria." + spec file Expected Results:
- Existing spec copied to
_workspace/01_requirements_spec.md - Comparison + evaluation mode: comparator + evaluator deployed
- Vendor comparison and evaluation criteria generated from spec
Error Flow
Prompt: "I need to buy something but don't know what, maybe work laptops?" Expected Results:
- definer presents clarifying questions (use case, number of users, performance needs, etc.)
- Requirements derived from user responses
- Market price range presented if budget is undetermined
- Report notes "Requirements confirmation needed"
Agent Extension Skills
| Extension Skill | Path | Target Agent | Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendor-scoring | .claude/skills/vendor-scoring/skill.md |
vendor-comparator, evaluation-designer | Vendor evaluation scorecard, pricing formulas, reference checks |
| contract-checklist | .claude/skills/contract-checklist/skill.md |
contract-reviewer, acceptance-builder | Contract 10 key clauses, SLA design, acceptance criteria |