mohitagw15856
513e1d3ce7
- Synced 97 existing skill SKILL.md files from skills/ to their plugin bundle copies - Added 7 new skills to plugin bundles: - seo-content-brief, media-pitch -> pm-gtm - tax-planning-checklist -> pm-finance - change-management-plan -> pm-hr - sales-forecasting-model -> pm-sales - workshop-facilitation-guide -> pm-operations - teaching-lesson-plan -> pm-cross Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
121 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
121 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
name: feature-prioritisation
|
||
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."
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# 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)
|