30 Claude Prompts for Procurement

You are a sourcing specialist who writes clear RFQs that suppliers can quote against without back and forth questions. <context> I have technical specs for a part or service and need to turn them into a formal RFQ document to send to a shortlist of suppliers. </context> <inputs> - Item or service description: [ITEM DESCRIPTION] - Technical specifications: [PASTE SPECS] - Quantity and delivery timeline: [QUANTITY, DEADLINE] - Commercial requirements: [PAYMENT TERMS, WARRANTY, INCOTERMS] </inputs> <task> Write a complete RFQ document with a scope section, technical requirements, commercial terms, and a clear list of what suppliers must include in their response. </task> <constraints> Be precise enough that two suppliers reading it would quote on the exact same thing. Include a response deadline placeholder. Avoid vague phrases like as needed or industry standard, spell out the actual requirement instead. </constraints> <format> A formatted document with numbered sections: Scope, Specifications, Commercial Terms, Required Response Format, and Timeline. </format>

You are a sourcing analyst who screens supplier longlists down to a workable shortlist. <context> I have too many potential suppliers to send an RFQ to all of them and need to narrow the list to the strongest 5. </context> <inputs> - Full list of candidates with brief notes: [PASTE LIST] - Must have criteria: [E.G. CERTIFICATIONS, MINIMUM CAPACITY, LOCATION] - Nice to have criteria: [E.G. SUSTAINABILITY, LOCAL PRESENCE] - Number to shortlist: [NUMBER] </inputs> <task> Filter the candidate list against the must have criteria first, then rank the survivors using the nice to have criteria, and return the top candidates as the shortlist. </task> <constraints> Explain in one line why each excluded candidate was cut. Do not shortlist a candidate that fails a must have criterion even if they score well otherwise. If information for a candidate is incomplete, mark them as needs more information rather than excluding automatically. </constraints> <format> Two lists: Shortlisted Suppliers with one line reasoning each, and Excluded Suppliers with the reason for exclusion. </format>

You are a procurement manager who sets evaluation criteria before quotes come in, to avoid bias later. <context> I am about to send an RFQ and want the scoring criteria locked in advance so the evaluation is fair and defensible. </context> <inputs> - Category and what is being sourced: [CATEGORY] - Business priorities for this purchase: [E.G. LOWEST COST, FASTEST DELIVERY, HIGHEST QUALITY, LOCAL SUPPLIER] - Stakeholders involved in the decision: [WHO ELSE SCORES] - Budget ceiling: [BUDGET, IF ANY] </inputs> <task> Produce a scoring rubric with named criteria, a percentage weight for each, and a one line description of what a 1 out of 5 versus a 5 out of 5 looks like for each criterion. </task> <constraints> Weights must add to 100 percent. Keep the number of criteria between four and six so the rubric stays usable. Write descriptions in plain terms a non specialist stakeholder could apply consistently. </constraints> <format> A table with columns Criterion, Weight, 1 out of 5 description, 5 out of 5 description. </format>

You are a procurement coordinator who compiles supplier quotes into a single comparison for decision makers. <context> I have quotes back from multiple suppliers in different formats and need one clean comparison to present. </context> <inputs> - Quote from supplier 1: [PASTE] - Quote from supplier 2: [PASTE] - Quote from supplier 3: [PASTE] - Key fields to compare: [E.G. UNIT PRICE, LEAD TIME, MOQ, PAYMENT TERMS, WARRANTY] </inputs> <task> Extract the key fields from each quote and build a single comparison table, noting any field a supplier did not clearly state. </task> <constraints> Do not average or estimate numbers a supplier did not provide, mark those cells as [NOT STATED]. Normalize units where possible, for example convert everything to price per unit. Flag any quote with unusual or non standard terms buried in fine print. </constraints> <format> A single markdown table with suppliers as columns and the key fields as rows, followed by a short list of flagged items. </format>

You are a procurement manager who declines bids professionally to keep good suppliers willing to quote again. <context> I selected a different supplier for this contract but want to notify the unsuccessful bidder respectfully, without giving away confidential details of the winning bid. </context> <inputs> - Supplier name: [SUPPLIER NAME] - General reason for not selecting them: [E.G. PRICE, LEAD TIME, CAPACITY FIT] - Whether we want to consider them for future work: [YES OR NO] - Any specific positive feedback to include: [WHAT THEY DID WELL] </inputs> <task> Write a short, respectful email informing the supplier they were not selected this time, giving a general and honest reason without disclosing competitor pricing or names, and inviting future bids if appropriate. </task> <constraints> Keep it under 150 words. Do not reveal the winning supplier's name or exact pricing. Avoid sounding like a form letter, reference something specific about their proposal. </constraints> <format> A ready to send email with subject line, greeting, body, and sign off. </format>

You are a procurement negotiator preparing your strategy before a pricing negotiation call. <context> I have a call scheduled with a supplier to negotiate pricing and terms on a renewal, and I want a clear strategy rather than winging it. </context> <inputs> - Current terms and pricing: [CURRENT PRICE AND TERMS] - Supplier's proposed new terms: [THEIR PROPOSAL] - Our bargaining strengths: [E.G. VOLUME GROWTH, COMPETING QUOTES, LONG RELATIONSHIP] - Our walk away point: [MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE PRICE OR TERMS] </inputs> <task> Build a negotiation strategy including our opening position, our target outcome, our walk away point, and three specific tactics to use if the supplier pushes back. </task> <constraints> Be realistic about our actual bargaining power rather than overstating it. Do not suggest tactics that would damage a long term relationship we want to keep. Keep the walk away point private, only reference it internally. </constraints> <format> Four short sections: Opening Position, Target Outcome, Walk Away Point, and Tactics If They Push Back, each with two to three bullet points. </format>

You are a procurement negotiator who prepares for pushback before a supplier meeting. <context> I expect the supplier to object to our price target and I want strong, calm responses ready in advance. </context> <inputs> - Our price or term target: [OUR ASK] - Likely objections we expect: [E.G. RAW MATERIAL COSTS ROSE, WE ARE ALREADY AT COST, COMPETITORS PAY MORE] - Facts we can use in response: [MARKET DATA, VOLUME COMMITMENTS, PAYMENT RELIABILITY] - Relationship context: [HOW LONG WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER] </inputs> <task> For each likely objection, write a calm, fact based response that acknowledges their point but holds our position, using the facts provided. </task> <constraints> Do not write responses that sound dismissive or confrontational. Each response should be two to three sentences, usable as spoken language on a call. Do not fabricate data points beyond what was given. </constraints> <format> A list with each objection in bold followed by the prepared response underneath. </format>

You are a procurement analyst assessing how much negotiating power we actually have before a contract renewal. <context> Before I walk into a renewal negotiation I want an honest assessment of our bargaining power, not wishful thinking. </context> <inputs> - Our annual spend with this supplier: [SPEND AMOUNT] - Supplier's dependency on us, if known: [E.G. PERCENT OF THEIR REVENUE] - Switching cost and time to switch suppliers: [ESTIMATE] - Number of viable alternative suppliers: [NUMBER] </inputs> <task> Assess our bargaining power level as low, medium, or high, explaining the reasoning, and recommend whether to push hard on price, focus on non price terms instead, or hold steady on current terms. </task> <constraints> Be conservative, if switching cost is high or alternatives are few, say so plainly rather than recommending an aggressive push. Base the assessment only on the inputs given, flag any factor that is unknown. </constraints> <format> A bargaining power rating line at the top, followed by a short paragraph of reasoning, then a one sentence recommendation. </format>

You are a procurement manager responding to a supplier's initial pricing with a counter offer. <context> The supplier sent their opening quote and I want to send back a counter offer that is firm but keeps negotiations moving. </context> <inputs> - Supplier's initial offer: [PRICE AND TERMS OFFERED] - Our counter target: [OUR COUNTER PRICE AND TERMS] - Justification we can use: [MARKET RATES, VOLUME, COMPETING QUOTES] - Relationship tone to keep: [E.G. COLLABORATIVE, FIRM, TRANSACTIONAL] </inputs> <task> Write a counter offer email that states our counter position clearly, gives one or two justifications, and proposes a next step such as a call. </task> <constraints> Keep it under 200 words. Do not concede our target price within the letter itself. Match the relationship tone specified rather than defaulting to purely transactional language. </constraints> <format> A ready to send email with subject line, greeting, two short paragraphs, and a clear next step sentence. </format>

You are a procurement manager who runs a short debrief after every major negotiation to improve the next one. <context> I just finished a negotiation call and want to capture what happened while it is fresh, for my own records and for the next person who negotiates with this supplier. </context> <inputs> - What we asked for going in: [OUR ORIGINAL ASK] - What we actually settled on: [FINAL OUTCOME] - What the supplier pushed back on hardest: [THEIR MAIN RESISTANCE POINT] - What surprised us during the call: [ANY SURPRISES] </inputs> <task> Write a negotiation debrief summarizing the outcome versus the original ask, what worked, what did not work, and one specific recommendation for the next negotiation with this supplier. </task> <constraints> Be honest about where we gave up more than planned, do not spin the outcome. Keep it to half a page. The recommendation must be specific and actionable, not a general lesson like communicate better. </constraints> <format> Four short sections: Outcome vs Ask, What Worked, What Did Not Work, Recommendation For Next Time. </format>

You are a contracts analyst who translates dense supplier agreements into plain language for busy stakeholders. <context> I need to brief my director on a long supplier contract before a renewal decision and they will not read the full document. </context> <inputs> - Contract text or key sections: [PASTE CONTRACT TEXT] - Specific concerns to check for: [E.G. AUTO RENEWAL, LIABILITY CAPS, TERMINATION NOTICE] - Who this summary is for: [ROLE OF THE READER] </inputs> <task> Summarize the contract's key commercial terms, obligations on both sides, and any risky or unusual clauses, in language a non lawyer can understand in under two minutes of reading. </task> <constraints> Do not give legal advice or claim a clause is enforceable, describe what it says and flag it for legal review if it looks unusual. Quote the exact clause when flagging a risk so it can be verified. Keep the summary to one page. </constraints> <format> Sections titled Key Terms, Our Obligations, Their Obligations, and Flagged Clauses, each as short bullet points. </format>

You are a contracts administrator who tracks obligations and deadlines across supplier agreements. <context> I am setting up a tracker for this contract and need every date and recurring obligation pulled out so nothing gets missed. </context> <inputs> - Contract text: [PASTE CONTRACT TEXT] - Contract start date: [START DATE] - Notice periods to watch for: [E.G. RENEWAL, TERMINATION] </inputs> <task> Extract every date, deadline, renewal window, and recurring obligation mentioned in the contract, and calculate the actual calendar date for each based on the start date given. </task> <constraints> If a deadline is described relative to another event rather than a fixed date, show the calculation, not just the result. Do not skip minor obligations like reporting requirements even if they seem small. List items in chronological order. </constraints> <format> A table with columns Date, Obligation, Party Responsible, sorted earliest to latest. </format>

You are a procurement contracts specialist who checks supplier drafts against our company's standard positions. <context> A supplier sent back a redlined or custom contract draft and I need to know where it deviates from what we normally accept. </context> <inputs> - Supplier's draft contract text: [PASTE THEIR DRAFT] - Our standard positions: [E.G. NET 30 PAYMENT, 30 DAY TERMINATION NOTICE, LIABILITY CAP AT CONTRACT VALUE] - Deal importance: [E.G. HIGH VALUE, STANDARD, LOW RISK] </inputs> <task> Go through the supplier's draft and identify every point where it differs from our standard positions, and rate each deviation as acceptable, negotiable, or a dealbreaker. </task> <constraints> Quote the actual clause language for each deviation found. Do not flag a clause as a deviation if it matches our standard position even if worded differently. This is not legal advice, note that final sign off needs legal review. </constraints> <format> A table with columns Clause, Their Wording, Our Standard, Rating, followed by a one line closing note recommending legal review. </format>

You are a procurement manager drafting a formal request to amend an existing supplier contract. <context> Circumstances have changed since we signed this contract and I need to formally request specific changes from the supplier. </context> <inputs> - Current contract clause: [PASTE CURRENT CLAUSE] - What we want changed and why: [DESIRED CHANGE AND REASON] - Contract reference number or name: [CONTRACT REFERENCE] - Desired effective date of the amendment: [DATE] </inputs> <task> Write a formal amendment request letter that references the current clause, states the requested change clearly, explains the business reason briefly, and proposes an effective date. </task> <constraints> Keep the tone professional and factual, not apologetic. State the requested change as specific replacement language, not just a general wish. Do not exceed one page. </constraints> <format> A formal letter with reference line, current clause quoted, proposed new clause, brief justification paragraph, and requested effective date. </format>

You are a category manager preparing a renew or rebid decision brief for a contract nearing expiry. <context> A major contract is expiring soon and I need to decide and justify whether to renew, renegotiate, or rebid it. </context> <inputs> - Contract summary and current terms: [CURRENT TERMS] - Supplier performance this term: [PERFORMANCE DATA OR NOTES] - Market conditions since signing: [E.G. NEW COMPETITORS, PRICE CHANGES] - Time and effort a rebid would take: [ESTIMATE] </inputs> <task> Weigh the case for renewing as is, renegotiating key terms, or rebidding the contract entirely, and recommend one path with clear reasoning. </task> <constraints> Give genuine weight to the effort and risk of rebidding, not just potential savings. State the recommendation in the first line, then justify it. Note any missing information that would change the recommendation. </constraints> <format> A one line recommendation at the top, followed by three short sections: Case For Renewal, Case For Rebid, Final Reasoning. </format>

You are a procurement analyst who turns messy transaction exports into a spend breakdown. <context> I have a raw export of purchase transactions and need it grouped into categories to see where the money actually goes. </context> <inputs> - Transaction data: [PASTE ROWS OF VENDOR, AMOUNT, DESCRIPTION] - Categories to group into: [E.G. RAW MATERIALS, LOGISTICS, OFFICE SUPPLIES, SERVICES] - Time period covered: [DATE RANGE] </inputs> <task> Categorize each transaction into the given categories based on the vendor and description, then produce a total spend and percentage of total for each category. </task> <constraints> If a transaction does not clearly fit a category, put it in an Uncategorized group rather than forcing a guess. Show the total transaction count per category alongside the dollar amount. Do not silently drop any transaction from the total. </constraints> <format> A table with columns Category, Total Spend, Percent of Total, Transaction Count, sorted highest spend first. </format>

You are a procurement compliance analyst who identifies spend happening outside approved supplier agreements. <context> I suspect teams are buying from suppliers outside our negotiated agreements and want to quantify how much of that is happening. </context> <inputs> - Transaction data: [PASTE VENDOR AND AMOUNT ROWS] - List of approved or preferred suppliers: [PASTE APPROVED LIST] - Category this spend falls under: [CATEGORY] </inputs> <task> Compare the transaction vendors against the approved supplier list, total the spend going to non approved vendors, and list the top non approved vendors by amount. </task> <constraints> Match vendor names carefully, note any that might be the same supplier under a slightly different name rather than treating them as automatically non compliant. State the total maverick spend as both a dollar amount and a percentage of total category spend. </constraints> <format> A summary line with total maverick spend and percentage, followed by a table of the top non approved vendors and amounts. </format>

You are a procurement analyst who audits purchase order data for pricing that does not look right. <context> I want to check whether we are being charged consistent prices for the same items across different purchase orders and time periods. </context> <inputs> - Purchase order data: [PASTE ITEM, SUPPLIER, UNIT PRICE, DATE ROWS] - Items or item codes to focus on: [SPECIFIC ITEMS, OR ALL] - Variance threshold to flag: [MINIMUM PERCENT VARIANCE] </inputs> <task> Find cases where the same item from the same supplier was billed at meaningfully different unit prices across orders, and list them with the price difference and percentage variance. </task> <constraints> Only flag variances above 5 percent to avoid noise from rounding. Note the dates involved so seasonal or negotiated price changes can be distinguished from errors. Do not assume every variance is an error, describe it neutrally. </constraints> <format> A table with columns Item, Supplier, Price Range Found, Percent Variance, Dates Involved, sorted by largest variance first. </format>

You are a procurement analyst building a spend forecast to support next year's budget planning. <context> Finance wants a spend forecast for my category before the new budget cycle starts. </context> <inputs> - Historical spend by period: [PASTE MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY SPEND NUMBERS] - Known upcoming changes: [E.G. VOLUME GROWTH, PRICE INCREASES, NEW CONTRACTS] - Category name: [CATEGORY] </inputs> <task> Project next year's spend for this category based on the historical trend, then adjust the projection for the known upcoming changes listed, showing the baseline and adjusted numbers separately. </task> <constraints> Show the trend calculation used for the baseline, do not just state a number. Clearly separate which part of the forecast is trend based versus adjustment based. Flag if the historical data given is too short to trend reliably. </constraints> <format> A short paragraph explaining the baseline trend, a table showing baseline versus adjusted forecast by period, and a one sentence summary of the total projected annual spend. </format>

You are a procurement cost reduction specialist reviewing a spend report for savings opportunities. <context> Leadership has asked for a savings target this year and I need to find realistic opportunities from our existing spend data. </context> <inputs> - Spend by category and supplier: [PASTE SPEND DATA] - Contracts up for renewal soon: [LIST ANY] - Known pain points: [E.G. TOO MANY SUPPLIERS IN ONE CATEGORY, LOW VOLUME DISCOUNTS USED] </inputs> <task> Identify the three to five most realistic cost saving opportunities from this spend data, such as supplier consolidation, volume discount renegotiation, or category rationalization, and estimate a rough savings range for each. </task> <constraints> Label savings estimates clearly as rough estimates, not guarantees. Prioritize opportunities that do not require replacing a high performing supplier relationship. Avoid generic suggestions like negotiate harder, tie every suggestion to the specific data given. </constraints> <format> A numbered list of opportunities, each with a one sentence description, an estimated savings range, and an implementation difficulty rating of easy, medium, or hard. </format>

You are a supply chain risk manager assessing dependency on single source suppliers. <context> I want to understand how exposed we are to disruption from suppliers we only have one source for. </context> <inputs> - List of single source items and their suppliers: [PASTE LIST] - Annual spend or criticality of each item: [SPEND OR CRITICALITY NOTES] - Known supplier issues, if any: [E.G. FINANCIAL TROUBLE, GEOGRAPHIC RISK] </inputs> <task> Rank the single source items by overall risk exposure, combining how critical the item is with how vulnerable the supplier seems, and recommend which two or three should get a backup supplier first. </task> <constraints> Base the ranking on the inputs given, do not assume risk factors not mentioned. State the reasoning behind the top recommendations plainly. Avoid alarmist language, keep it factual. </constraints> <format> A ranked table with columns Item, Supplier, Risk Level, Reasoning, followed by a short paragraph naming the top priorities for backup sourcing. </format>

You are a procurement compliance officer checking a supplier's self reported practices against our code of conduct. <context> A supplier submitted answers to our code of conduct questionnaire and I need to check for gaps or red flags before approval. </context> <inputs> - Our code of conduct key requirements: [PASTE KEY REQUIREMENTS, E.G. LABOR, SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL] - Supplier's questionnaire answers: [PASTE THEIR ANSWERS] - Supplier country and industry: [COUNTRY AND INDUSTRY] </inputs> <task> Compare the supplier's answers against each requirement and identify any answer that is vague, incomplete, or potentially non compliant, along with a suggested follow up question for each gap found. </task> <constraints> Do not certify the supplier as compliant, that decision belongs to a human reviewer. Quote the supplier's actual answer when flagging a gap. Keep follow up questions specific and answerable, not open ended. </constraints> <format> A table with columns Requirement, Supplier Answer, Gap Identified, Suggested Follow Up Question. </format>

You are a procurement risk manager preparing to check a critical supplier's disaster preparedness. <context> This supplier is critical to our operations and I want to understand how prepared they are for disruptions before we deepen the relationship. </context> <inputs> - Supplier name and what they supply: [SUPPLIER AND ITEM] - Types of disruption we are most worried about: [E.G. NATURAL DISASTER, SINGLE FACILITY, CYBER INCIDENT] - Our required recovery time if they go down: [MAX ACCEPTABLE DOWNTIME] </inputs> <task> Write a business continuity questionnaire covering their backup facilities, recovery time objectives, insurance coverage, and past disruption history, tailored to the disruption types we are most worried about. </task> <constraints> Keep questions specific enough to require a real answer, not a policy statement. Limit to 12 questions so the supplier will actually complete it. Order questions from most critical to least critical. </constraints> <format> A numbered list of 12 questions grouped under Facilities and Backup, Recovery Time, and Insurance and History. </format>

You are a procurement risk analyst reviewing a supplier's financial standing before a major contract commitment. <context> We are about to commit significant volume to this supplier and I want a plain language read on their financial health first. </context> <inputs> - Financial information available: [PASTE FINANCIAL SUMMARY, CREDIT REPORT, OR PUBLIC FILING EXCERPTS] - Contract value we are considering: [PROPOSED VALUE] - Contract length: [LENGTH] </inputs> <task> Summarize what the financial information suggests about the supplier's stability, including any warning signs like declining revenue, high debt, or shrinking margins, and state whether the proposed contract value looks proportionate to their apparent size. </task> <constraints> This is not financial advice, note that a formal credit check should still be run for high value commitments. Do not speculate beyond what the data shows. Be clear about what data was missing that would improve the assessment. </constraints> <format> A short paragraph summary, a bullet list of warning signs found or none found, and a one sentence proportionality assessment. </format>

You are a procurement manager preparing an escalation plan for a supplier whose performance is slipping. <context> A key supplier's performance has been declining and I need a structured plan before things get worse, including what happens if they do not improve. </context> <inputs> - Supplier name: [SUPPLIER NAME] - Specific performance problems: [E.G. LATE DELIVERIES, RISING DEFECT RATE, POOR COMMUNICATION] - Contract terms relevant to performance: [ANY SLA OR PENALTY CLAUSES] - How critical this supplier is to us right now: [CRITICALITY LEVEL] </inputs> <task> Build a staged escalation plan with three levels, starting with a direct conversation, moving to a formal improvement plan with deadlines, and ending with contract consequences or supplier replacement, tailored to how critical this supplier currently is. </task> <constraints> Make each stage's trigger condition explicit, such as no improvement within 30 days. If the supplier is highly critical, build in more time and support before jumping to replacement. Reference the actual contract terms given when relevant to the consequences stage. </constraints> <format> Three headed stages, each with a trigger condition, the action to take, and a timeframe. </format>