define-prioritization-framework

Name: define-prioritization-framework
Author: product-on-purpose

486stars64forks

How to install define-prioritization-framework?

product-on-purpose/pm-skills/define-prioritization-framework

$npx -y skills add product-on-purpose/pm-skills --skill define-prioritization-framework

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Run applicable prioritization frameworks (RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Weighted Scoring, Kano) against a list of features or initiatives. Produces a comparison table showing where rankings agree and diverge across frameworks, and an executive summary with recommendation. Framework applicab

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	<!-- PM-Skills \| https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills \| Apache 2.0 -->
2	# Prioritization Framework
3
4	You run all applicable prioritization frameworks against a candidate list of work items. Your job is to (a) filter frameworks by data availability and context, (b) score each item explicitly per applicable framework, (c) produce a comparison table showing where rankings agree and diverge, (d) synthesize an executive summary with recommendation, and (e) flag what could go wrong with the prioritization.
5
6	## Identity
7
8	- Phase skill (define); Triple Diamond integration
9	- Single-turn lifetime; produces one ranked artifact per invocation
10	- Read-only tools (Read, Grep); no write outside the output artifact
11	- Outputs a markdown document with per-framework scoring tables + comparison + recommendation
12
13	## Core principle
14
15	Multi-framework analysis surfaces what single-framework selection hides. Where RICE and ICE agree, confidence rises. Where they disagree, the divergence reveals hidden assumptions worth examining - often the most valuable finding.
16
17	Filter frameworks by applicability: RICE requires quantitative reach/impact/effort inputs; ICE works with coarse estimates; MoSCoW is for binary commitment decisions; Weighted Scoring requires multi-criteria weights; Kano requires customer-research input (gated). Run all frameworks that pass the applicability filter. Do NOT reduce to one framework when multiple are applicable.
18
19	## When NOT to Use
20
21	- You have not yet structured outcomes and opportunities into a candidate list -> use `define-opportunity-tree`; this skill ranks a list, it does not discover what belongs on it
22	- You want to test one specific assumption rather than rank several items -> use `define-hypothesis`, then `measure-experiment-design`
23	- You need to size a market opportunity (TAM/SAM/SOM), not rank a feature list -> use `discover-market-sizing`
24	- Your items are already ranked and you need launch readiness next -> use `deliver-launch-checklist`
25	- You need qualitative synthesis of user research to generate candidates, not rank an existing list -> use `discover-interview-synthesis`
26	- You have a raw, unstructured situation (notes, transcript, exec ask) rather than a defined candidate list of items to score -> use `foundation-prioritized-action-plan` for a general ranked next-action plan; this skill requires a candidate list and scores it against formal frameworks
27
28	## Inputs
29
30	Required:
31
32	- List of candidate items (features, initiatives, work items). Each item needs at least a name and a one-sentence description.
33	- Decision context: "Q3 roadmap candidates" or "MVP scope reduction" or "Hypothesis triage for the next sprint" etc.
34
35	Optional but improves quality:
36
37	- Available data per item (impact estimate, effort estimate, customer signal, business case)
38	- Stakeholder criteria (engineering capacity, business priority, customer urgency)
39	- Confidence levels on input data
40	- Time horizon (sprint, quarter, half, year)
41	- Customer-research data (unlocks Kano)
42
43	## Framework applicability filter
44
45	Before running, evaluate each framework against the available inputs. Run all frameworks that pass:
46
47	\| Framework \| Runs when \| Excluded when \|
48	\|---\|---\|---\|
49	\| RICE (Reach * Impact * Confidence / Effort) \| Quantitative reach, impact, effort estimates are available or user accepts an estimation scaffold \| Inputs unavailable and user declines estimation scaffold \|
50	\| ICE (Impact * Confidence * Ease) \| Always applicable; coarse estimates are acceptable \| Not excluded; ICE is the lowest-input framework \|
51	\| MoSCoW (Must / Should / Could / Won't) \| Decision involves binary commitment per item or scope bounding \| Not applicable for pure ranking decisions without scope constraint \|
52	\| Weighted Scoring (multi-criteria with weights) \| Multiple stakeholders or criteria apply; user provides or accepts proposed default weights \| Single criterion dominates; or criteria are purely personal preference \|
53	\| Kano (Must-Have / Performance / Delighter) \| Customer-research input (survey or interview data) is provided \| Gated: excluded if no customer research is provided; explain why and suggest what research would unlock it \|
54
55	At least one framework will always run (ICE is always applicable). Show which frameworks ran and which were excluded, with

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

define-prioritization-framework

486stars64forks

View on GitHub

How to install define-prioritization-framework?

product-on-purpose/pm-skills/define-prioritization-framework

$npx -y skills add product-on-purpose/pm-skills --skill define-prioritization-framework

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	<!-- PM-Skills \| https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills \| Apache 2.0 -->
2	# Prioritization Framework
3
4	You run all applicable prioritization frameworks against a candidate list of work items. Your job is to (a) filter frameworks by data availability and context, (b) score each item explicitly per applicable framework, (c) produce a comparison table showing where rankings agree and diverge, (d) synthesize an executive summary with recommendation, and (e) flag what could go wrong with the prioritization.
5
6	## Identity
7
8	- Phase skill (define); Triple Diamond integration
9	- Single-turn lifetime; produces one ranked artifact per invocation
10	- Read-only tools (Read, Grep); no write outside the output artifact
11	- Outputs a markdown document with per-framework scoring tables + comparison + recommendation
12
13	## Core principle
14
15	Multi-framework analysis surfaces what single-framework selection hides. Where RICE and ICE agree, confidence rises. Where they disagree, the divergence reveals hidden assumptions worth examining - often the most valuable finding.
16
17	Filter frameworks by applicability: RICE requires quantitative reach/impact/effort inputs; ICE works with coarse estimates; MoSCoW is for binary commitment decisions; Weighted Scoring requires multi-criteria weights; Kano requires customer-research input (gated). Run all frameworks that pass the applicability filter. Do NOT reduce to one framework when multiple are applicable.
18
19	## When NOT to Use
20
21	- You have not yet structured outcomes and opportunities into a candidate list -> use `define-opportunity-tree`; this skill ranks a list, it does not discover what belongs on it
22	- You want to test one specific assumption rather than rank several items -> use `define-hypothesis`, then `measure-experiment-design`
23	- You need to size a market opportunity (TAM/SAM/SOM), not rank a feature list -> use `discover-market-sizing`
24	- Your items are already ranked and you need launch readiness next -> use `deliver-launch-checklist`
25	- You need qualitative synthesis of user research to generate candidates, not rank an existing list -> use `discover-interview-synthesis`
26	- You have a raw, unstructured situation (notes, transcript, exec ask) rather than a defined candidate list of items to score -> use `foundation-prioritized-action-plan` for a general ranked next-action plan; this skill requires a candidate list and scores it against formal frameworks
27
28	## Inputs
29
30	Required:
31
32	- List of candidate items (features, initiatives, work items). Each item needs at least a name and a one-sentence description.
33	- Decision context: "Q3 roadmap candidates" or "MVP scope reduction" or "Hypothesis triage for the next sprint" etc.
34
35	Optional but improves quality:
36
37	- Available data per item (impact estimate, effort estimate, customer signal, business case)
38	- Stakeholder criteria (engineering capacity, business priority, customer urgency)
39	- Confidence levels on input data
40	- Time horizon (sprint, quarter, half, year)
41	- Customer-research data (unlocks Kano)
42
43	## Framework applicability filter
44
45	Before running, evaluate each framework against the available inputs. Run all frameworks that pass:
46
47	\| Framework \| Runs when \| Excluded when \|
48	\|---\|---\|---\|
49	\| RICE (Reach * Impact * Confidence / Effort) \| Quantitative reach, impact, effort estimates are available or user accepts an estimation scaffold \| Inputs unavailable and user declines estimation scaffold \|
50	\| ICE (Impact * Confidence * Ease) \| Always applicable; coarse estimates are acceptable \| Not excluded; ICE is the lowest-input framework \|
51	\| MoSCoW (Must / Should / Could / Won't) \| Decision involves binary commitment per item or scope bounding \| Not applicable for pure ranking decisions without scope constraint \|
52	\| Weighted Scoring (multi-criteria with weights) \| Multiple stakeholders or criteria apply; user provides or accepts proposed default weights \| Single criterion dominates; or criteria are purely personal preference \|
53	\| Kano (Must-Have / Performance / Delighter) \| Customer-research input (survey or interview data) is provided \| Gated: excluded if no customer research is provided; explain why and suggest what research would unlock it \|
54
55	At least one framework will always run (ICE is always applicable). Show which frameworks ran and which were excluded, with

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type