SkillCheck validator, Cursor exports, and per-agent installers (#27)
Three more learnings from alirezarezvani/claude-skills, applied: 1. SkillCheck validator (scripts/skillcheck.mjs) — validates every SKILL.md against the authoring standard (frontmatter, name/folder match, trigger + produces clauses, required headings) plus tier referential integrity. Errors fail CI; --strict fails on warnings too. New skillcheck.yml workflow and a SkillCheck status badge in the README. Current: 0 errors / 14 advisory warnings across 172 skills. 2. Cursor export platform — build-exports.mjs now generates exports/cursor/<bundle>/<skill>/<skill>.mdc rule files. The PLATFORMS registry now supports per-skill filenames (file as a function). 3. Per-agent installers — scripts/install.sh unifies install for claude/hermes/codex/openclaw/cursor (--link, --target, --dry-run, --list). Curl-able one-liners codex-install.sh, openclaw-install.sh, and cursor-install.sh clone the library and install in a single command. README documents the one-line installs and Cursor exports; CHANGELOG and the authoring standard updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
mohitagw15856
GitHub
@@ -0,0 +1,129 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: "Apply prioritisation frameworks (RICE, MoSCoW, Kano, ICE, Opportunity Scoring) to rank features and backlog items. Use when asked to prioritise features, rank a backlog, decide what to build next, or evaluate tradeoffs between competing ideas. Produces a scored, ranked feature list with framework-specific tables, recommended build order, deprioritised items, and assumptions made."
|
||||
globs:
|
||||
alwaysApply: false
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Feature Prioritisation Skill
|
||||
|
||||
Apply the right prioritisation framework to any backlog and produce a clear, defensible ranking with rationale — not just a sorted list.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Inputs
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||||
- **List of features or initiatives to prioritise**
|
||||
- **Goal or metric** being prioritised against (OKR, launch, sprint)
|
||||
- **Preferred framework** (or recommend based on context below)
|
||||
- **Team data**: reach estimates, effort estimates, velocity (for RICE)
|
||||
|
||||
## Framework Selection Guide
|
||||
|
||||
Ask the user which framework they prefer, or recommend based on context:
|
||||
|
||||
| Situation | Recommended Framework |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Need a quick, data-driven score | RICE |
|
||||
| Stakeholder alignment meeting | MoSCoW |
|
||||
| Understanding customer delight vs expectations | Kano |
|
||||
| Early-stage startup, fast decisions | ICE |
|
||||
| Identifying underserved customer needs | Opportunity Scoring |
|
||||
| Strategic portfolio decisions | Value vs Effort Matrix |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## RICE Scoring
|
||||
|
||||
**Formula:** (Reach × Impact × Confidence) ÷ Effort
|
||||
|
||||
| Factor | Definition | Scale |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Reach | Users impacted per quarter | Actual number |
|
||||
| Impact | Effect on goal per user | 0.25 / 0.5 / 1 / 2 / 3 |
|
||||
| Confidence | How certain are you? | 50% / 80% / 100% |
|
||||
| Effort | Person-months required | Actual number |
|
||||
|
||||
Output table:
|
||||
| Feature | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | RICE Score | Priority |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## MoSCoW Method
|
||||
|
||||
Categorise each feature as:
|
||||
- **Must Have** — non-negotiable for launch/sprint; product fails without it
|
||||
- **Should Have** — important but not critical; workarounds exist
|
||||
- **Could Have** — nice to have; include only if time allows
|
||||
- **Won't Have (this time)** — explicitly out of scope now; may revisit
|
||||
|
||||
Always ask: "Must have for *what*?" — define the scope (launch, sprint, quarter) before categorising.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## ICE Scoring (Startup/fast mode)
|
||||
|
||||
**Formula:** Impact + Confidence + Ease (each 1–10)
|
||||
|
||||
Quick, subjective — good for early decisions before data exists.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Kano Model
|
||||
|
||||
Classify features into:
|
||||
- **Basic (Must-be):** Expected; absence causes dissatisfaction
|
||||
- **Performance:** More = better satisfaction; linear relationship
|
||||
- **Excitement (Delighters):** Unexpected; creates delight; absence is neutral
|
||||
- **Indifferent:** Users don't care either way
|
||||
- **Reverse:** Some users want it, others don't
|
||||
|
||||
Recommend building: all Basic features first → Performance features for key use cases → 1–2 Excitement features per release.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
### Feature Prioritisation — [Product/Team] — [Date]
|
||||
|
||||
**Framework Used:** [RICE / MoSCoW / ICE / Kano / Custom]
|
||||
**Scope:** [Sprint / Quarter / Release]
|
||||
**Goal being prioritised against:** [Metric or objective]
|
||||
|
||||
[Scored table using selected framework]
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended Build Order:**
|
||||
1. [Feature] — [1-line rationale]
|
||||
2. [Feature] — [1-line rationale]
|
||||
3. ...
|
||||
|
||||
**Explicitly Deprioritised:**
|
||||
- [Feature] — Reason: [brief]
|
||||
|
||||
**Assumptions Made:**
|
||||
- [Any estimates or judgements used in scoring]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
- Always anchor prioritisation to a specific goal or metric — never prioritise in a vacuum
|
||||
- Flag when two features have similar scores but very different risk profiles
|
||||
- If stakeholder politics are influencing prioritisation, name it explicitly and suggest separating the framework score from the final decision
|
||||
- Recommend revisiting priorities every 2 weeks minimum
|
||||
- Never produce a single-column ranked list without rationale — explain the top 3 and bottom 3 decisions
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checks
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Every item is scored against the same goal or metric (not different goals per item)
|
||||
- [ ] Deprioritised items are explicitly listed with reasons (not just absent from the ranked list)
|
||||
- [ ] Assumptions used in scoring are documented
|
||||
- [ ] Stakeholder politics or personal preferences are separated from framework score
|
||||
- [ ] Prioritisation is anchored to a specific scope (sprint / quarter / launch)
|
||||
|
||||
## Anti-Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Do not score items against different goals — every item in a prioritisation session must be scored against the same objective
|
||||
- [ ] Do not omit deprioritised items — explicitly listing what was cut and why is as important as the ranked list
|
||||
- [ ] Do not let stakeholder politics override framework scores without documenting the override and reason
|
||||
- [ ] Do not mix RICE, ICE, or MoSCoW scores across frameworks in a single session — pick one framework per prioritisation exercise
|
||||
- [ ] Do not treat the output as final without documenting the assumptions used in scoring — assumptions change, and the list must be revisitable
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user