Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Guides product managers in selecting the right prioritization framework (RICE, ICE, value/effort) based on product stage, team context, and stakeholder needs.
npx claudepluginhub deanpeters/product-manager-skills --plugin workshop-facilitationHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/product-manager-skills:prioritization-advisorThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Guide product managers in choosing the right prioritization framework by asking adaptive questions about product stage, team context, decision-making needs, and stakeholder dynamics. Use this to avoid "framework whiplash" (switching frameworks constantly) or applying the wrong framework (e.g., using RICE for strategic bets or ICE for data-driven decisions). Outputs a recommended framework with ...
Provides reference to 9 prioritization frameworks including RICE, ICE, Opportunity Score, Kano, MoSCoW with formulas, when-to-use guidance, and templates for selecting or comparing methods.
Provides reference to 9 prioritization frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano, MoSCoW, Opportunity Score, etc.) with formulas, when-to-use guidance, and templates. Use when selecting, comparing, or learning prioritization methods.
Runs RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Weighted Scoring, and Kano frameworks against a list of features or initiatives. Produces a comparison table and executive summary with recommendation.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Guide product managers in choosing the right prioritization framework by asking adaptive questions about product stage, team context, decision-making needs, and stakeholder dynamics. Use this to avoid "framework whiplash" (switching frameworks constantly) or applying the wrong framework (e.g., using RICE for strategic bets or ICE for data-driven decisions). Outputs a recommended framework with implementation guidance tailored to your context.
This is not a scoring calculator—it's a decision guide that matches prioritization frameworks to your specific situation.
Common frameworks and when to use them:
Scoring frameworks:
Strategic frameworks:
Contextual frameworks:
Use workshop-facilitation as the default interaction protocol for this skill.
It defines:
Other (specify) when useful)This file defines the domain-specific assessment content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic.
This interactive skill asks up to 4 adaptive questions, offering 3-4 enumerated options at each step.
Agent asks: "What stage is your product in?"
Offer 4 enumerated options:
Or describe your product stage (new idea, growth mode, established, etc.).
User response: [Selection or custom]
Agent asks: "What's your team and stakeholder environment like?"
Offer 4 enumerated options:
Or describe your team/stakeholder context.
User response: [Selection or custom]
Agent asks: "What's the primary challenge you're trying to solve with prioritization?"
Offer 4 enumerated options:
Or describe your specific challenge.
User response: [Selection or custom]
Agent asks: "How much data do you have to inform prioritization?"
Offer 3 enumerated options:
Or describe your data situation.
User response: [Selection or custom]
After collecting responses, the agent recommends a framework:
# Prioritization Framework Recommendation
**Based on your context:**
- **Product Stage:** [From Q1]
- **Team Context:** [From Q2]
- **Decision-Making Need:** [From Q3]
- **Data Availability:** [From Q4]
---
## Recommended Framework: [Framework Name]
**Why this framework fits:**
- [Rationale 1 based on Q1-Q4]
- [Rationale 2]
- [Rationale 3]
**When to use it:**
- [Context where this framework excels]
**When NOT to use it:**
- [Limitations or contexts where it fails]
---
## How to Implement
### Step 1: [First implementation step]
- [Detailed guidance]
- [Example: "Define scoring criteria: Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort"]
### Step 2: [Second step]
- [Detailed guidance]
- [Example: "Score each feature on 1-10 scale"]
### Step 3: [Third step]
- [Detailed guidance]
- [Example: "Calculate RICE score: (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort"]
### Step 4: [Fourth step]
- [Detailed guidance]
- [Example: "Rank by score; review top 10 with stakeholders"]
---
## Example Scoring Template
[Provide a concrete example of how to use the framework]
**Example (if RICE):**
| Feature | Reach (users/month) | Impact (1-3) | Confidence (%) | Effort (person-months) | RICE Score |
|---------|---------------------|--------------|----------------|------------------------|------------|
| Feature A | 10,000 | 3 (massive) | 80% | 2 | 12,000 |
| Feature B | 5,000 | 2 (high) | 70% | 1 | 7,000 |
| Feature C | 2,000 | 1 (medium) | 50% | 0.5 | 2,000 |
**Priority:** Feature A > Feature B > Feature C
---
## Alternative Framework (Second Choice)
**If the recommended framework doesn't fit, consider:** [Alternative framework name]
**Why this might work:**
- [Rationale]
**Tradeoffs:**
- [What you gain vs. what you lose]
---
## Common Pitfalls with This Framework
1. **[Pitfall 1]** — [Description and how to avoid]
2. **[Pitfall 2]** — [Description and how to avoid]
3. **[Pitfall 3]** — [Description and how to avoid]
---
## Reassess When
- Product stage changes (e.g., PMF → scaling)
- Team grows or reorganizes
- Stakeholder dynamics shift
- Current framework feels broken (e.g., too slow, ignoring important factors)
---
**Would you like implementation templates or examples for this framework?**
Q1 Response: "Early PMF, scaling — Found initial PMF; growing fast; adding features to retain/expand"
Q2 Response: "Cross-functional team, aligned — Product, design, engineering aligned; clear goals"
Q3 Response: "Lack of data-driven decisions — Prioritizing by gut feel; want metrics-based process"
Q4 Response: "Some data — Basic analytics, customer feedback, but no rigorous data collection"
Recommended Framework: RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort)
Why this fits:
When to use it:
When NOT to use it:
Implementation:
(Reach × Impact × Confidence) / EffortExample Scoring:
| Feature | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | RICE Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Email reminders | 5,000 | 2 | 70% | 1 | 7,000 |
| Mobile app | 10,000 | 3 | 60% | 6 | 3,000 |
| Dark mode | 8,000 | 1 | 90% | 0.5 | 14,400 |
Priority: Dark mode > Email reminders > Mobile app (despite mobile app having high Reach/Impact, Effort is too high)
Alternative Framework: ICE (Impact, Confidence, Ease)
Why this might work:
Tradeoffs:
Common Pitfalls:
Q1 Response: "Pre-product/market fit — Searching for PMF; experimenting rapidly"
Q2 Response: "Small team, limited resources — 3 engineers, 1 PM"
Q3 Response: "Too many ideas, unclear which to pursue"
Q4 Response: "Minimal data — New product, no usage metrics"
Recommended Framework: ICE (Impact, Confidence, Ease) or Value/Effort Matrix
Why NOT RICE:
Why ICE instead:
Or Value/Effort Matrix:
Symptom: Pre-PMF startup using weighted scoring with 10 criteria
Consequence: Overhead kills speed. You need experiments, not rigorous scoring.
Fix: Match framework to stage. Pre-PMF = ICE or Value/Effort. Scaling = RICE. Mature = Opportunity Scoring or Kano.
Symptom: Switching frameworks every quarter
Consequence: Team confusion, lost time, no consistency.
Fix: Stick with one framework for 6-12 months. Reassess only when stage/context changes.
Symptom: "Feature A scored 8,000, Feature B scored 7,999, so A wins"
Consequence: Ignores strategic context, judgment, and vision.
Fix: Use frameworks as input, not automation. PM judgment overrides scores when needed.
Symptom: PM scores features alone, presents to team
Consequence: Lack of buy-in, engineering/design don't trust scores.
Fix: Collaborative scoring sessions. PM, design, engineering score together.
Symptom: "We prioritize by who shouts loudest"
Consequence: HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion) wins, not data or strategy.
Fix: Pick any framework. Even imperfect structure beats chaos.
user-story.md — Prioritized features become user storiesepic-hypothesis.md — Prioritized epics validated with experimentsrecommendation-canvas.md — Business outcomes inform prioritizationSkill type: Interactive
Suggested filename: prioritization-advisor.md
Suggested placement: /skills/interactive/
Dependencies: None (standalone, but informs roadmap and backlog decisions)