agentsclimarketplace

Rice prioritization

Skill event4u-app/agent-config/src/skills/rice-prioritization

Universal AI Agent OS — audited skills, governance rules, replayable state. One contract, every host agent.

Install
npx -y skills add event4u-app/agent-config --skill rice-prioritization

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 7 stars7 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when ranking competing initiatives for a roadmap, breaking a tie between two features, or auditing a backlog for hidden low-value work via Reach × Impact × Confidence ÷ Effort.

SKILL.md

5.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

rice-prioritization

When to use

  • A backlog has more candidates than capacity for the next quarter and someone has to pick.
  • A PM and an engineering lead disagree on what ships first and need a shared framework.
  • A draft roadmap reads like a wish list — no transparency on why these and not those.

Do NOT use for valuation, OKR decomposition, or funnel-stage diagnosis (see Related Skills).

Procedure

Step 0: Inspect

  1. Confirm there are at least 5 candidates. RICE on 2 items is theatre; just argue the merits.
  2. Confirm there is a shared definition of the target user for "Reach" — RICE breaks if two scorers count different populations.

Step 1: Score Reach

  1. Reach = number of users / events / requests per fixed time window (per quarter is the default).
  2. Use absolute counts pulled from analytics or product DB, not percentages — percentages hide tiny denominators.
  3. If the data isn't there, write the query you'd run and say so. Do not invent numbers.

Step 2: Score Impact

  1. Use the canonical 5-point scale: 0.25 (minimal) · 0.5 (low) · 1 (medium) · 2 (high) · 3 (massive).
  2. Anchor each level with a concrete past shipped feature ("medium = like the search filter we shipped Q2"). Without anchors, scorers drift.
  3. Impact is per affected user, not aggregate. Aggregate is what RICE produces, not what you input.

Step 3: Score Confidence

  1. Confidence is a percentage — 100 / 80 / 50 / "low and we should not score this yet".
  2. Anything below 50 means: stop, do a spike or a research week, then re-score. RICE does not rescue ignorance.
  3. Confidence multiplies — it is the model's discount for unknown unknowns.

Step 4: Score Effort

  1. Effort = person-months for the smallest viable shippable slice. Not the fantasy version.
  2. Engineering owns this number. PMs scoring effort is the most common process failure.
  3. Effort < 0.5 person-months almost always means scope is underestimated — surface and ask.

Step 5: Compute and rank

  1. RICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort.
  2. Rank descending. The score is the artefact, not the answer — read the top 5 with a critical eye.
  3. Anti-pattern: treating RICE rank as a contract. It is a structured argument, not a verdict.

Step 6: Audit the bottom

  1. Look at the bottom quartile. If a strategic must-have lives there, the model has a calibration error — usually Reach or Impact.
  2. Look at the top item. If it is obviously absurd (e.g. one ad-hoc admin tool above a strategic platform play), the input scoring is uncalibrated.

Gotcha

  • Reach in percentages hides "this feature affects 100% of … 12 users."
  • Impact inflation: every PM thinks every feature is a 2 or 3. Force at least 30% of items to score 0.5 or below.
  • Confidence is the only multiplier that punishes uncertainty — do not let it default to 80 for everything.
  • Effort discrepancy between PM and engineering on the same row is itself the signal — investigate, do not average.

Do NOT

  • Do NOT rank fewer than 5 candidates with RICE — overhead exceeds value.
  • Do NOT mix strategic bets and BAU tickets in the same RICE table; their effort scales differ by 10×.
  • Do NOT ship a roadmap that is exactly the RICE-sorted top-N — you need at least one strategic outlier with a written rationale.

Related Skills

WHEN to use this

  • Ranking is the actual question.
  • The team needs a shared, auditable scoring frame.

WHEN NOT to use this

  • ONE choice between alternatives on custom criteria (not many items on the fixed R×I×C/E formula) — route to decision-record § Weighted-matrix mode.
  • Decomposing an objective into KRs — route to okr-tree-modeling.
  • Diagnosing why a funnel stage drops — route to funnel-analysis.
  • Modelling whether an investment is worth its capital cost — route to dcf-modeling.
  • CAC / LTV / payback questions — route to unit-economics-modeling.

When the agent should load this

  • "Help me prioritize the backlog for Q3."
  • "RICE-score these features."
  • "Why is X above Y on the roadmap?"
  • "We have 30 ideas and 6 engineers — what ships?"
  • "Audit our roadmap for low-value work."

Output

  1. rice-table.md — markdown table: Item · Reach · Impact · Confidence · Effort · RICE · Owner · Notes. Sorted descending by RICE.
  2. calibration-notes.md — one paragraph per anchor (what "Impact = 2" means with a named past feature) plus a list of items with confidence < 50 marked for spike-first.
  3. top-5-critique.md — one paragraph per top-5 item: is the rank defensible, and what would change it.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.