Rfp Response Proposal Review

Proposal Review Skill

Firm Profile (REQUIRED — fill in before use)

These values define who your firm is and how it writes. See SETUP.md.

• FIRM NAME: [FIRM NAME]
• WHAT THE FIRM DOES: [one sentence]
• ROLE BOUNDARY: [what the firm will NOT claim to do — leave blank if none]
• VENDOR STANCE: [vendor-neutral OR resells/implements specific products]
• SPECIALIZATION: [domains the firm credibly claims]
• VOICE: [3–5 adjectives]

Purpose

An AI-generated proposal draft may look complete but contain three categories of silent failure: drift from the approved strategy, missed RFP requirements, or content not grounded in the firm's source material. None are obvious from a quick read. This skill audits all three dimensions and produces a structured Review Report telling the human reviewer exactly what to look at — and what has already been verified — before they open the draft.

Critical Output Rules

Do not output the Review Report or audit findings to chat. All findings go into the Review Report Word document saved in Step 6. Chat output is limited to one-line progress updates per step and the final summary.

The Review Report Word document is the only deliverable. Accumulate findings internally, then write the complete report in Step 6.

Prerequisites

• The generated proposal draft (.docx) must be in the deal's WIP Collaboration Folder subfolder.
• The Strategy Brief (.docx, Phase 2) must be accessible — approved ToC, strategic themes, tone guidance, section-by-section drafting notes.
• The RFP Tracker List must be accessible with all columns populated, including Available Content and Source 1/2/3.
• Write access to the deal's WIP Collaboration Folder subfolder.

Step 1 — Load All Inputs

Load and read the following before any checks.

Proposal Draft — read in full. Note:

• The actual section structure and headings present
• Text marked as placeholder ([PLACEHOLDER, [TBD, [INSERT, [MISSING, or similar)
• Sections notably thin (less than one substantive paragraph)
• Specific factual claims, statistics, or named outcomes that require source grounding

Strategy Brief (Phase 2) — extract:

• The approved Table of Contents (exact structure and order)
• The strategic themes (3–5, with client priority, firm differentiator, supporting content)
• Tone and voice guidance
• Section-by-section drafting notes
• Content gaps flagged in Phase 2 — these should appear as placeholders in the draft

RFP Tracker List — read all rows, focusing on:

• Every Question, Mandatory Requirement, and Evaluation Criterion — must be addressed in the draft
• Available Content — what the content generation agent was supposed to draw from
• Source 1/2/3 — the documents the agent should have consulted per row
• Rows where Available Content = "No Match" — these should appear as placeholders

Step 2 — Strategy Fidelity Check

Cross-reference the draft against the approved Strategy Brief. Did the draft follow the blueprint?

2a — ToC Structure Check. Compare actual headings against the approved ToC. For each approved section:

• Present and correct — exists and heading matches or is a reasonable equivalent
• Present but repositioned — exists but in a different order (flag — ordering was deliberate based on evaluation weights)
• Missing — an approved section is absent (critical failure)
• Added — draft contains a section not in the approved ToC (flag — may be appropriate or scope drift)

2b — Strategic Theme Coverage. For each of the 3–5 themes, assess:

• Present — a reader would understand the argument (not just a keyword)
• Weak — mentioned but not developed into a clear, evidenced argument
• Absent — no meaningful treatment

2c — Tone and Voice. Sample at minimum the exec summary, one mid-document body section, and one appendix-adjacent section. For each: does the writing match the tone guidance and Firm Profile VOICE? Are flagged language patterns present? Does it read as [FIRM NAME]-authored or generic consultant prose?

2d — Drafting Notes Compliance. For each section with specific drafting notes, check whether the draft followed them. Flag any section where the note said to emphasise a differentiator or avoid a framing and the draft did the opposite.

Step 3 — RFP Coverage Check

Re-run coverage logic on the actual draft — not the approved ToC. A requirement being in the ToC does not mean it was addressed. For every RFP Tracker row where Category = Question, Mandatory Requirement, or Evaluation Criterion, locate the corresponding passage and classify:

• Covered — a substantive response exists (at minimum one paragraph directly addressing the requirement)
• Placeholdered — a clearly marked, descriptive placeholder exists in the relevant section (acceptable where Phase 2 flagged a gap; the text must say what is missing, not just mark a blank)
• Missing — neither a substantive response nor a placeholder exists (critical gap — flag for immediate action)
• Thin — a response exists but is less than one substantive paragraph, or only generic statements not specific to this RFP (moderate priority)

Produce a Draft Coverage Map (same format as the Phase 2 Coverage Map, plus a Coverage Status column):

DRAFT COVERAGE MAP
RFP Row | Item (abbreviated) | Category | ToC Section | Coverage Status | Notes
--------|-------------------|----------|-------------|-----------------|------
Row 1   | Describe transformation methodology | Question | Section 2 | Covered | 3 paragraphs, specific to client context
Row 2   | Provide 2 examples relevant experience | Question | Section 4 + Appendix B | Covered | 2 case studies present
Row 3   | Bidder authority to contract | Mandatory | Appendix C | Placeholder | Awaiting signed cert — noted correctly
Row 4   | 90-day execution plan | Question | Section 3 | Thin | Only 1 generic paragraph — needs specifics
Row 5   | Describe subcontracting strategy | Mandatory | Section 6 | Missing | No response and no placeholder — critical gap