Files
pm-claude-skills/plugins/pm-planning/skills/feature-prioritisation/SKILL.md
T
2026-03-23 08:13:37 +00:00

105 lines
3.5 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
---
name: feature-prioritisation
description: Applies 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. Triggers on "prioritise features", "what should we build", "backlog grooming", "RICE score", "MoSCoW".
---
# Feature Prioritisation Skill
Apply the right prioritisation framework to any backlog and produce a clear, defensible ranking with rationale — not just a sorted list.
## 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 110)
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 → 12 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