cowork-rfp-response
Turn an RFP and a folder of your past proposals, case studies, and capability docs into a requirement-by-requirement compliance matrix and a drafted response. Flags disqualifiers and unanswerable requirements before you burn a week writing.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/OneWave-AI/claude-skills /tmp/cowork-rfp-response && cp -r /tmp/cowork-rfp-response/cowork-rfp-response ~/.claude/skills/cowork-rfp-responseSKILL.md
# Cowork RFP Response
Respond to an RFP the way a seasoned proposal manager does: decompose every requirement first, decide bid/no-bid honestly, reuse the best prior language, and never claim a capability the source documents do not support. Inputs: the RFP document and a folder of company material (past proposals, case studies, bios, certifications, pricing sheets).
## Workflow
1. **Shred the RFP.** Extract every numbered and implied requirement into a matrix: ID, requirement text (verbatim), type (mandatory/scored/informational), section owner, and any disqualifier ("must have X certification", "minimum N years"). Extract the logistics separately: due date, format, page limits, submission method, Q&A deadline, evaluation criteria and weights.
2. **Bid/no-bid check.** Before drafting anything, report disqualifiers you cannot document from the company folder and requirements with weak evidence. Ask whether to proceed. This is the most valuable five minutes of the skill.
3. **Mine the folder.** For each requirement, find the strongest supporting material: prior proposal sections, case studies with named results, team bios, certifications. Record source file and section in the matrix. Mark each requirement `STRONG` (direct evidence), `PARTIAL` (adjacent evidence, needs framing), or `GAP` (nothing found).
4. **Draft.** Write the response following the RFP's mandated structure exactly. For `STRONG` items, adapt the best prior language to this client's context. For `PARTIAL`, draft honest framing and flag it for review. For `GAP`, insert a clearly marked `[GAP: needs input -- suggested approach]` block rather than fiction.
5. **Compliance pass.** Verify every mandatory requirement is addressed where the RFP says it must be, page/format limits hold, and required attachments are listed. Output `compliance-matrix.md` (the full matrix with response locations) and `rfp-response-draft.md`.
6. **Executive summary last.** Write it after the body, leading with the client's stated problem in their own vocabulary and the 2-3 discriminators the evidence actually supports.
## Rules
- Never invent capabilities, clients, metrics, or certifications. Every claim traces to a source file; `GAP` blocks are the honest alternative.
- Use the client's terminology from the RFP, not internal jargon. Evaluators score against their own words.
- Answer the requirement asked, not the adjacent one you have better material for -- then add the better material.
- Respect page limits from the first draft; cutting 40% at the end butchers the good sections.
- Boilerplate is a starting point, not a deliverable. Any reused paragraph must name this client and this context or it gets rewritten.
- Track questions for the Q&A window: ambiguous requirements go in a `questions-to-submit.md` list, drafted in submission-ready form.
## Quick Commands
- "Shred [RFP file]" -- requirements matrix and logistics only
- "Should we bid?" -- steps 1-3, the honest gap report
- "Full response with [folder]" -- complete workflow
- "Compliance check my draft" -- step 5 against an existing draftAudit websites for accessibility issues and WCAG compliance. Use when checking accessibility, fixing a11y issues, or ensuring WCAG compliance.
Deploy a 2-layer parallel agent hierarchy for large, parallelizable work — big refactors, multi-file migrations, codebase-wide audits, bulk generation. A top-tier commander (Fable or Opus) orchestrates the swarms; the user picks a power level (Max Power / Heavy / Balanced / Economy) that sets the Opus/Sonnet/Haiku model mix per layer. Layer 1 is 3-50+ specialist agents, each with its own full context window; Layer 2 is 2+ sub-agents per member. Includes git safety, tiered sizing, a pre-deploy gate, phantom-completion checks, and multi-wave follow-up.
Deploys swarms of sub-agents for massive parallel data processing tasks. Unlike agent-army (which is for code changes), this is for DATA tasks -- processing 1000 documents, analyzing datasets, bulk content generation. Configurable swarm size, task distribution, result aggregation, progress tracking, and error recovery.
Designs and deploys custom agent teams for specific business workflows. Interactive discovery of business processes, then generates complete team configurations with specialized agent roles, tool access, communication protocols, and handoff rules.
Agent-to-Agent (A2A) communication protocol. Connect two or more Claude agents that pass messages, share context, delegate tasks, and collaborate. Implements structured handoffs, shared memory, and multi-agent conversations.
Assesses how ready a business is for AI adoption across six dimensions. Evaluates data maturity, tech stack, team skills, process documentation, budget, and culture. Generates a comprehensive ai-readiness-report.md with scores, gap analysis, and recommended starting points. Aligned with OneWave AI's audit methodology.
Generate animated videos and motion graphics from natural language descriptions. Creates a standalone Vite + React project with Framer Motion scenes that auto-play in the browser. Use when the user wants to create animations, motion graphics, video intros, animated presentations, or product demos.
Generate comprehensive API documentation including endpoint descriptions, request/response examples, authentication guides, error codes, and SDKs. Creates OpenAPI/Swagger specs, REST API docs, and developer-friendly reference materials. Use when users need to document APIs, create technical references, or write developer documentation.