AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified Apache-2.0 Self-run

Responding To Rfis

skill-danielkinneyspears-federal-proposal-skills-responding-to-rfis · by danielkinneyspears

Drafts pre-RFP shaping responses for US Federal opportunities. Use when the user needs to respond to a sources-sought notice, a request for information (RFI), or a draft RFP, or to draft a capability statement, a white paper, or a draft-RFP comment matrix. Produces responses that demonstrate capability, inform the government's market research and set-aside decision, and legitimately shape the req…

No reviews yet
0 installs
19 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-danielkinneyspears-federal-proposal-skills-responding-to-rfis

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-danielkinneyspears-federal-proposal-skills-responding-to-rfis)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
2mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Responding To Rfis? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Responding to RFIs

Draft the pre-RFP shaping responses — sources-sought responses, RFI responses, draft-RFP comments, capability statements, white papers. This is real capture work, not paperwork. A sources-sought response can influence whether an acquisition is set aside; a draft-RFP comment can change Section L or Section M; a white paper can teach the customer what to ask for. The package's capture skills name these vehicles — this skill actually writes them.

When to use this skill

Use this skill during the capture phase, whenever the government issues a pre-RFP instrument that invites an industry response: a sources-sought notice, a request for information, an industry-day request for input, or a draft RFP released for comment. Also use it to produce capability statements and white papers offered to the customer as shaping vehicles.

It does not respond to the actual RFP — that is the proposal-development skills. This skill operates before the RFP exists.

Inputs

Required: the government instrument being responded to — the sources-sought notice, RFI, draft RFP, or industry-day announcement — and its response instructions (what the government asks for, the format, the deadline).

Preferred upstream artifacts:

  • 02-capture-plan.md: the customer knowledge, hot buttons, and shaping

objectives the response should advance.

  • 00-opportunity-profile.md: the opportunity facts.
  • 05-win-strategy.md, 03-competitive-assessment.md — where they exist, to

align the response with the emerging win approach.

Read ../../shared/glossary.md and ../../shared/pursuit-workspace.md if not already read this session. The procurement-integrity limits in references/shaping-response-types.md govern this skill — read them before drafting anything.

Intake

Ask these as a numbered list. Skip what the instrument answers.

  1. The instrument. What is it — a sources-sought notice, an RFI, a draft

RFP, an industry-day request, or an offered white paper/capability statement? What exactly does the government ask for, in what format, by when?

  1. The shaping objective. What does the team want this response to achieve —

demonstrate capability, influence the set-aside decision, shape the scope, shape Section L or M, build customer awareness? (From 02-capture-plan.md if available.)

  1. Capability facts. What true capability, past performance, and

qualifications can the response draw on?

  1. The set-aside angle. For a sources-sought notice: is the team a small

business or in a socioeconomic category, and does the response need to support a set-aside the team would benefit from?

  1. Draft-RFP specifics. For a draft RFP: which parts (scope, Section L,

Section M) does the team want to comment on, and what change does it want?

Workflow

Shaping Response:
- [ ] Step 1: Read the instrument and the shaping limits; complete intake
- [ ] Step 2: Identify the response type and the shaping objective
- [ ] Step 3: Draft the response for that type
- [ ] Step 4: Run the legitimacy and value check
- [ ] Step 5: Write the artifact (06-shaping-response-.md)

Step 1: Read. Read the government instrument and the procurement-integrity limits in references/shaping-response-types.md. Confirm the response stays inside the rules.

Step 2: Type and objective. Identify the response type and the single shaping objective it serves. Use references/shaping-response-types.md. A response with no shaping objective is a wasted opportunity to influence.

Step 3: Draft. Draft the response using the type-specific guidance in shaping-response-types.md:

  • Sources-sought response: demonstrate capability and relevant experience

concisely, address the qualifications the notice asks about, and (where the team would benefit) substantiate the basis for a set-aside.

  • RFI response: answer the government's questions substantively and, where

the RFI invites it, offer informed input on approach and feasibility.

  • Draft-RFP comments: a comment matrix: the section, the issue, the

recommended change, and the rationale framed as making the eventual competition clearer and fairer.

  • White paper / capability statement: educate the customer on what is

possible and what good looks like; substance over salesmanship.

Step 4: Legitimacy and value check. Verify the response (a) stays within the procurement-integrity limits — no request for source-selection-sensitive information, no improper advantage, truthful capability claims; and (b) actually advances the shaping objective. A draft-RFP comment that only helps the team by secretly disadvantaging competitors is a risk, not shaping — cut it.

Step 5: Write. Write 06-shaping-response-.md (e.g., 06-shaping-response-rfi.md) using templates/shaping-response.md. If the team responds to several instruments over a capture, each gets its own file.

Output

One artifact per response: 06-shaping-response-.md in the pursuit workspace.

Present the user with: the drafted response, the shaping objective it advances, and confirmation it stays within the procurement-integrity limits.

References

  • references/shaping-response-types.md: the procurement-integrity limits, and sources-sought, RFI, draft-RFP comments, white papers, and capability statements: what each is for and how to write each, including the set-aside angle.
  • templates/shaping-response.md: the shaping response artifact template.

Guardrails

  • Stay inside the integrity limits. Follow the rules in

references/shaping-response-types.md. Never seek source-selection-sensitive information, never seek an improper advantage, never misrepresent capability.

  • Truthful capability only. Sources-sought and RFI responses inform real

government decisions. Overstating capability is both an integrity problem and a credibility loss when the RFP arrives.

  • Shape by educating. Legitimate shaping makes the customer's requirement

better. A "shaping" idea that works only by disadvantaging competitors or relying on private information is not shaping — drop it.

  • Mind the deadline. Pre-RFP instruments have response deadlines; a late

shaping response forfeits the influence.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.