Prioritization
Skill viktorbezdek/skillstack/prioritization/skills/prioritization
Skills I use and develop to deliver better outcomes faster and with less effort.
npx -y skills add viktorbezdek/skillstack --skill prioritizationAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 10 stars10 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
Apply RICE, MoSCoW, ICE, and effort-impact frameworks to rank options and decide what to work on next. Use when the user asks to prioritize a backlog, rank features, decide what to build first, apply RICE or MoSCoW scoring, cut scope, or compare items by effort vs impact. NOT for defining success metrics or OKRs (use outcome-orientation). NOT for making a strategic bet under uncertainty (use strategic-decision workflow).
SKILL.md
4.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Prioritization
Make better decisions about what to do first.
When to use this skill
- Scoring features or initiatives to decide quarterly priorities
- Categorizing requirements as Must/Should/Could/Won't for a release
- Creating effort-impact matrices for sprint planning
- Defending prioritization decisions to stakeholders with data
- Auditing existing prioritization for bias (HiPPO, recency, squeaky wheel)
- Choosing between RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, or effort-impact for a specific situation
When NOT to use this skill
- Defining OKRs or success metrics → use
outcome-orientation - Assessing project risks → use
risk-management - Making strategic bets under deep uncertainty → use
strategic-decisionworkflow - Stakeholder analysis for whose input to weight → use
persona-mapping
Framework selection decision tree
Do you have reach data (users affected per quarter)?
YES → Do you need quantitative rigor for stakeholder defense?
YES → RICE (most defensible, separates reach/impact/confidence)
NO → Effort-Impact matrix (quick visual sort)
NO → Do you need release scoping with capacity constraints?
YES → MoSCoW (60% rule prevents scope creep)
NO → ICE (lightweight, works with subjective scores only)
Using more than one? They complement each other:
RICE or ICE for quarterly prioritization
MoSCoW for release scoping
Effort-Impact for sprint-level quick wins
RICE Scoring
Reach x Impact x Confidence / Effort
| Factor | Description | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Reach | Users affected per quarter | Number |
| Impact | Effect on goal | 0.25-3 |
| Confidence | Certainty level | 50-100% |
| Effort | Person-months | Number |
Score = (R x I x C) / E
Impact Scale
- 3 = Massive
- 2 = High
- 1 = Medium
- 0.5 = Low
- 0.25 = Minimal
MoSCoW Method
| Priority | Meaning | Guideline |
|---|---|---|
| Must | Required for success | Non-negotiable |
| Should | Important but not vital | Include if possible |
| Could | Nice to have | If time permits |
| Won't | Not this time | Explicitly excluded |
Rule: Must = 60% max of effort
ICE Scoring
| Factor | Description | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Impact | Potential value | 1-10 |
| Confidence | Certainty | 1-10 |
| Ease | Simplicity | 1-10 |
Score = (I + C + E) / 3
Effort-Impact Matrix
HIGH IMPACT
|
BIG | QUICK
BETS | WINS
|
-----+------ LOW EFFORT
|
MONEY| FILL
PITS | INS
|
LOW IMPACT
Priority order: Quick Wins -> Big Bets -> Fill Ins -> Avoid Money Pits
Prioritization Template
## Item: [Name]
### RICE Score
| Factor | Value | Notes |
|--------|-------|-------|
| Reach | [num] | [who] |
| Impact | [0.25-3] | [why] |
| Confidence | [%] | [evidence] |
| Effort | [PM] | [breakdown] |
| **Score** | [calc] | |
### Decision
Priority: [High/Med/Low]
Rationale: [reasoning]
Anti-Patterns
Common prioritization failures
- HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion) — the most senior person's preference wins regardless of impact data. Counter: present RICE comparison data; if overridden, document the override reason explicitly.
- Recency bias — the latest request displaces long-planned high-impact work. Counter: score every request before adding to backlog; compare new request score against current top items.
- Squeaky wheel — the loudest customer gets prioritized, not the most impacted segment. Counter: weight by reach data, not volume of complaints.
- Sunk cost fallacy — continuing a project because of past investment. Counter: re-score with only remaining effort and remaining impact; past investment is irrelevant to forward-looking decisions.
- Confidence inflation — scoring 90% confidence on everything, eliminating it as a differentiator. Counter: calibrate — 90% = strong evidence (A/B test, customer data), 70% = reasonable belief, 50% = intuition only.
- All Must-haves — MoSCoW with 15 "Must" items exceeding capacity. Counter: enforce the 60% rule; force-rank within Must and demote the lowest.
- RICE without data — guessing all values produces opinions with math, not defensible scores. Counter: switch to ICE (designed for subjective scoring) or invest in analytics before RICE.
- Strategic override without documentation — overriding RICE for a key account is sometimes correct, but undocumented overrides erode trust in the framework. Always write down why.
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most roadmap strategy skills give
Counted across 591 of the 672 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06
- read product marketing context before asking questionsin 21 of 591, across 10 files
- base price on perceived value, not costin 15 of 591, across 4 files
- compact after finalizing a planin 14 of 591, across 9 files
- differentiate tiers using features, limits, or supportin 14 of 591, across 3 files
- use Van Westendorp to find acceptable price rangein 13 of 591, across 2 files
- use MaxDiff to identify highly valued featuresin 13 of 591, across 2 files
- map topics to buyer journey stagesin 12 of 591, across 6 files
- Extract domain capabilities and classify subdomainsin 11 of 591, across 1 file
- Define bounded contexts around consistency and ownershipin 11 of 591, across 1 file
- Establish a ubiquitous language glossary and anti-termsin 11 of 591, across 1 file
- Capture context boundaries in ADRs before implementationin 11 of 591, across 1 file
- Open the strategic design template if neededin 11 of 591, across 1 file
Said here and by no other author read
- limit MoSCoW must-haves to 60% of effort
- order effort-impact matrix quadrants as specified
- score every new request before adding to backlog
- re-score sunk cost projects using remaining effort only
- calibrate confidence based on available evidence
- switch to ICE when lacking quantitative data
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once.