---

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

Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).

• 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.

---

Programmatic Helper

This skill ships with a stdlib-only Python script that computes ranking for the math-based frameworks (RICE, ICE) so feature scoring is consistent across sessions.

# RICE from JSON
python3 scripts/feature_prioritisation.py initiatives.json --framework rice

# RICE from CSV
python3 scripts/feature_prioritisation.py initiatives.csv --framework rice --format csv

# ICE from JSON
python3 scripts/feature_prioritisation.py features.json --framework ice

# Pipe into it
printf '%s\n' '[{"name":"API refactor","impact":8,"confidence":80,"ease":5}]' \
  | python3 scripts/feature_prioritisation.py --framework ice -

Use --json to produce machine-readable output for downstream tooling.

---

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

Deeper Materials

This skill ships with support files — use them when they are available:

• references/framework-selection.md — Picking the Prioritisation Framework (Instead of Defaulting to RICE). Apply it while producing the output; it carries the calibration and judgment calls the method summary above compresses.
• templates/prioritisation-session.md — a fill-in version of the deliverable with the quality gates inline. Offer it when the user wants to work the document themselves rather than have it generated.

Scoring Rubric (0–40)

Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.

Dimension	0	5	10
Goal anchoring	No stated goal, or items silently scored against different objectives	A goal is named but individual scores don't reference it; off-goal items scored anyway	One explicit metric and scope; every score justified against it; items serving a different goal ejected with instructions to resubmit
Scoring integrity	Frameworks mixed in one session, arithmetic wrong, or scales invented mid-table	One framework applied consistently, but confidence defaults high and scale anchors are undefined	Consistent framework, verifiable maths, defined impact anchors, confidence honestly reflecting the evidence behind each estimate
Transparency of cuts and assumptions	Cut items simply vanish; no record of estimates or their sources	Deprioritised items listed but without reasons; assumptions partial or unsourced	Every cut carries a reason and revisit trigger; assumptions name their sources (analytics, engineering estimates) so the ranking is re-runnable
Judgment beyond the number	A sorted table presented as the decision	Top picks get rationale, but near-ties, risk profiles, and politics go unmentioned	Near-ties broken on risk with reasoning shown; political pressure named with framework score separated from final decision; top and bottom of list both explained

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

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Prioritise features."
• "Rank a backlog."
• "Decide what to build next."
• "Evaluate tradeoffs between competing ideas."