Files

T

mohitagw15856 f3b9d008fe feat: 100 skills milestone — 7 new skills + quality improvements across all 93

New skills added:
- teaching-lesson-plan: structured lesson plans for any subject/audience/setting
- seo-content-brief: complete SEO briefs with intent, competitor gaps, and outline
- media-pitch: story-first journalist pitches with angle development framework
- change-management-plan: stakeholder analysis, comms strategy, adoption metrics
- workshop-facilitation-guide: activity instructions, decision protocols, facilitator moves
- sales-forecasting-model: pipeline model, scenario analysis, assumption log
- tax-planning-checklist: year-end tax planning across income, pension, CGT, reliefs

Quality improvements across all 93 existing skills:
- Standardised description format: "Verb the thing. Use when X. Produces Y."
- Added Required Inputs section to all skills missing it (prompts for missing info)
- Added Quality Checks section to all skills missing it (specific, not generic)
- Fixed broken multiline YAML descriptions
- Removed non-standard frontmatter keys (tool_integration, metadata blocks)

README updated to v6.0.0 with 100-skill count, new skill tables, and article series

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-04-20 20:52:31 +01:00

4.3 KiB

Raw Blame History

name, description

name	description
feature-prioritisation	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:

[Feature] — [1-line rationale]
[Feature] — [1-line rationale]
...

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)

4.3 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape