Skill: afrexai-cto/afrexai-rfp-response-generator (version 1.0.0)

# RFP Response Generator Generate structured, persuasive responses to Requests for Proposals (RFPs), RFIs, and RFQs. Analyzes requirements, maps company capabilities, identifies gaps, and produces compliant response documents. ## Trigger Use when: - Responding to an RFP, RFI, or RFQ document - Drafting proposal sections (technical, management, pricing, past performance) - Analyzing RFP requirements for compliance mapping - Creating executive summaries or cover letters for proposals - Reviewing draft responses for completeness and compliance ## Inputs The user provides: 1. **RFP document** — the solicitation (PDF, text, or key requirements pasted) 2. **Company profile** — capabilities, past performance, team bios (or a file path) 3. **Win themes** — key differentiators to emphasize (optional) 4. **Page/word limits** — formatting constraints (optional) If company profile is not provided, ask for it before proceeding. ## Process ### Step 1: Requirements Extraction Parse the RFP and extract: - **Mandatory requirements** (shall/must statements) - **Evaluation criteria** and weights - **Submission format** requirements - **Key dates** (questions deadline, submission deadline, oral presentations) - **Scope of work** summary - **Special instructions** or certifications needed Output a compliance matrix: `| Req # | Requirement | Section | Compliant? | Response Notes |` ### Step 2: Compliance Mapping For each requirement: - Map to company capability or past performance - Flag gaps where company cannot fully comply - Suggest mitigation strategies for partial compliance - Identify teaming/subcontracting opportunities for gaps ### Step 3: Response Generation Generate response sections following this structure: #### Executive Summary - Opening hook tied to customer's mission - 3-4 win themes with proof points - Clear value proposition - Team/past performance highlights #### Technical Approach - Solution architecture aligned to requirements - Innovation or efficiency differentiators - Risk mitigation approach - Implementation timeline with milestones #### Management Approach - Project management methodology - Team structure and key personnel - Communication and reporting plan - Quality assurance process #### Past Performance - 3-5 relevant projects with: - Client (or anonymized reference) - Scope similarity to current RFP - Quantified outcomes (cost savings, efficiency gains, timeline delivery) - Relevance to evaluation criteria #### Pricing Narrative (non-pricing volume) - Value justification - Cost efficiency approach - ROI projection for the customer ### Step 4: Compliance Review Cross-check every requirement against the draft: - Verify all "shall" statements are addressed - Check page/word limits - Ensure evaluation criteria are explicitly addressed - Flag any ambiguous requirements needing clarification questions ## Output Deliver the following files: 1. **`compliance-matrix.md`** — Full requirements compliance mapping 2. **`executive-summary.md`** — Standalone executive summary 3. **`technical-response.md`** — Technical approach section 4. **`management-response.md`** — Management approach section 5. **`past-performance.md`** — Past performance narratives 6. **`review-checklist.md`** — Final compliance review with pass/fail per requirement ## Quality Rules - **Never fabricate past performance.** Use provided data or mark as `[INSERT: relevant project details]` - **Mirror the RFP language.** Use the customer's terminology, not generic business speak - **Address evaluation criteria explicitly.** If they score on "technical approach" at 40%, that section gets 40% of the effort - **Quantify everything.** "Reduced costs by 30%" beats "significant cost reduction" - **Follow the humanizer rules** from SOUL.md §7 for all narrative sections - **Flag risks honestly.** Evaluators respect transparency over hand-waving ## Anti-Patterns - Generic boilerplate that doesn't reference the specific RFP - Ignoring page limits or formatting requirements - Burying key differentiators in dense paragraphs - Claiming capabilities without evidence - Using first person ("we are the best") without proof points


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)