mohitagw15856
036511ab3e
Broadens both reach (more tools) and content types (an MCP server), continuing the multi-platform story. Windsurf + Aider: - build-exports.mjs gains two platforms: exports/windsurf/*.md (workspace rules, trigger: model_decision) and exports/aider/*.md (conventions for `aider --read`). Now 5 platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Aider). - install.sh + bin/cli.mjs install both (windsurf -> .windsurf/rules, aider -> .aider/skills with a --read hint); generated README index is excluded from copies. - One-line windsurf-install.sh / aider-install.sh wrappers for parity. MCP server (new content type): - mcp/server.mjs — zero-dependency stdio MCP server exposing list_skills, search_skills, get_skill. Published as a second bin (pm-claude-skills-mcp). Logs to stderr; reads bundled skills/ at startup. mcp/README.md documents client config. Also: README hero "See it in action" demo placement (ready to swap in a GIF; recording guide in web/docs-assets/README.md), Works-With table + exports + install docs updated, CHANGELOG Unreleased. package.json files/bin updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.0 KiB
3.0 KiB
RICE + Strategic Alignment Skill
Produce a prioritisation output that balances quantitative RICE scoring with qualitative strategic fit — because the highest RICE score isn't always the right next bet.
Required Inputs
Ask the user for these if not provided:
- List of initiatives or features to prioritise (names and brief descriptions)
- Current strategic priorities or OKRs (needed to rate strategic alignment)
- Reach estimates (users affected per quarter — even rough estimates work)
- Effort estimates (person-months — from engineering if available)
- Quarter or planning period
Two-Stage Process
Stage 1: RICE Scoring
- Reach: Users affected per quarter
- Impact: 3/2/1/0.5/0.25 scale
- Confidence: 100% / 80% / 50%
- Effort: Person-months
- RICE = (R × I × C) / E
Stage 2: Strategic Alignment Score
Rate each initiative against your current strategic priorities (provided as input):
- Directly supports top OKR: +3
- Supports secondary OKR: +2
- Neutral: +1
- Contradicts strategic direction: -1
Final Priority Score
Combined Score = RICE Score + (Strategic Alignment × 10)
Validate — Flag any initiative where RICE score and strategic alignment conflict sharply (e.g., high RICE, low alignment). These require an explicit team conversation before sequencing.
Output Structure
Priority Matrix — [Quarter]
| Initiative | RICE Score | Strategic Alignment | Combined Score | Quadrant | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [name] | [score] | [score] | [combined] | [Now/Next/Later/Drop] | [action] |
Quadrant Definitions
- Now: High RICE + High Strategic Alignment → Build this quarter
- Next: High RICE + Lower Alignment → Queue for next quarter
- Later: Lower RICE + High Alignment → Revisit when capacity allows
- Drop: Low RICE + Low Alignment → Remove from backlog
Recommendations
[Top 5 initiatives with rationale for sequencing]
Quality Checks
- All RICE components have an estimate (even if low confidence — flag those)
- Strategic alignment is rated against specific OKRs, not general "feels strategic"
- Conflicts between RICE rank and strategic alignment are explicitly flagged
- "Drop" recommendations are specific — not just "low priority, deprioritise"
- Confidence levels on estimates are noted where weak (drives the 50% confidence flag)
Anti-Patterns
- Do not treat the combined score as a definitive ranking — use it to structure a conversation, not replace one
- Do not rate strategic alignment as "high" because an initiative feels important without mapping it to a specific OKR
- Do not place all initiatives in the "Now" quadrant — a matrix with no "Drop" recommendations is not credible
- Do not ignore the conflict flag when RICE rank and strategic alignment sharply diverge
- Do not accept 100% confidence on estimates that have not been validated with data