task-prioritization
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Backlog prioritization frameworks — RICE, WSJF, ICE, MoSCoW, and opportunity-cost scoring. Use when ranking features, comparing initiatives, or justifying roadmap order.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Mharbulous/probanda-devtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- 2867203296/hermes-agenttheir own version, first seen Aug 19, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- Mharbulous/probanda-dev★ 1same name
- 2867203296/hermes-agent★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- context-engineeringSkill
- multi-agent-patternsSkill
- prompt-injection-defenseSkill
- rag-retrievalSkill
- adr-writerSkill
- ci-cdSkill
- playwright-e2eSkill
- structural-searchSkill
- react-server-componentsSkill
- shadcn-uiSkill
- tailwind-v4Skill
- zustand-stateSkill
- accessibilitySkill
- api-designSkill
- database-patternsSkill
- debuggingSkill
- security-patternsSkill
- typescript-patternsSkill
- proposal-writerSkill
- sitecore-xmcloudSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 98
No user data required. Score relative to other backlog items.
- Distinctive: line 128
When two items compete for the same team capacity, quantify what delaying each item costs per month.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Prioritization Frameworks
Score, rank, and justify backlog decisions using the right framework for the situation.
Decision Tree: Which Framework to Use
Do you have a hard deadline or regulatory pressure?
YES → WSJF (Cost of Delay drives sequencing)
NO → Do you have reach/usage data?
YES → RICE (data-driven, accounts for user reach)
NO → Are you in a time-boxed planning session?
YES → ICE (fast, 1-10 scales, no data required)
NO → Is this a scope negotiation with stakeholders?
YES → MoSCoW (bucket features, control scope creep)
NO → Value-Effort Matrix (quick 2x2 triage)| Framework | Best For | Data Required | Time to Score |
| RICE | Data-rich teams, steady-state prioritization | Analytics, user counts | 30-60 min |
| WSJF | SAFe orgs, time-sensitive or regulated work | Relative estimates only | 15-30 min |
| ICE | Startup speed, early validation, quick triage | None | 5-10 min |
| MoSCoW | Scope negotiation, release planning | Stakeholder input | 1-2 hours |
| Value-Effort | 2x2 visual, quick team alignment | None | 10-15 min |
RICE
RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort| Factor | Scale | Notes |
| Reach | Actual users/quarter | Use analytics; do not estimate |
| Impact | 0.25 / 0.5 / 1 / 2 / 3 | Minimal → Massive per user |
| Confidence | 0.3 / 0.5 / 0.8 / 1.0 | Moonshot → Strong data |
| Effort | Person-months | Include design, eng, QA |
## RICE Scoring: [Feature Name]
| Feature | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | Score |
|-------------|--------|--------|------------|--------|--------|
| Smart search| 50,000 | 2 | 0.8 | 3 | 26,667 |
| CSV export | 10,000 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 10,000 |
| Dark mode | 30,000 | 0.25 | 1.0 | 1 | 7,500 |See rules/prioritize-rice.md for ICE, Kano, and full scale tables.
WSJF
WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Size
Cost of Delay = User Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction (1-21 Fibonacci each)Higher WSJF = do first. Fibonacci scale (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21) forces relative sizing.
## WSJF: GDPR Compliance Update
User Value: 8 (required for EU customers)
Time Criticality: 21 (regulatory deadline this quarter)
Risk Reduction: 13 (avoids significant fines)
Job Size: 8 (medium complexity)
Cost of Delay = 8 + 21 + 13 = 42
WSJF = 42 / 8 = 5.25See rules/prioritize-wsjf.md for MoSCoW buckets and practical tips. See references/wsjf-guide.md for the full scoring guide.
ICE
ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease (all factors 1-10)No user data required. Score relative to other backlog items. Useful for early-stage products and rapid triage sessions.
MoSCoW
Bucket features before estimation. Must-Haves alone should ship a viable product.
## Release 1.0 MoSCoW
### Must Have (~60% of effort)
- [ ] User authentication
- [ ] Core CRUD operations
### Should Have (~20%)
- [ ] Search, export, notifications
### Could Have (~20%)
- [ ] Dark mode, keyboard shortcuts
### Won't Have (documented out-of-scope)
- Mobile app (Release 2.0)
- AI features (Release 2.0)Opportunity Cost & Trade-Off Analysis
When two items compete for the same team capacity, quantify what delaying each item costs per month.
## Trade-Off: AI Search vs Platform Migration (Q2 eng team)
### Option A: AI Search
- Cost of Delay: $25K/month (competitive risk)
- RICE Score: 18,000
- Effort: 6 weeks
### Option B: Platform Migration
- Cost of Delay: $5K/month (tech debt interest)
- RICE Score: 4,000
- Effort: 8 weeks
### Recommendation
Human decides. Key factors:
1. Q2 OKR: Increase trial-to-paid conversion (favors AI Search)
2. Engineering capacity: Only one team, sequential not parallel
3. Customer commitment: No contractual deadline for eitherSee rules/prioritize-opportunity-cost.md for the Value-Effort Matrix and full trade-off template. See references/rice-scoring-guide.md for detailed RICE calibration.
Common Pitfalls
| Pitfall | Mitigation |
| Gaming scores to justify pre-decided work | Calibrate as a team; document assumptions |
| Mixing frameworks in one table | Pick one framework per planning session |
| Only tracking high-RICE items; ignoring cost of delay | Combine RICE with explicit delay cost analysis |
| MoSCoW Must-Have bloat (>70% of scope) | Must-Haves alone must ship a viable product |
| Comparing RICE scores across different goals | Only compare within the same objective |
Related Skills
product-frameworks— Full PM toolkit (value prop, market sizing, competitive analysis, user research, business case)write-prd— Convert prioritized features into product requirements documentsproduct-analytics— Define and instrument the metrics that feed RICE reach/impact scoresokr-design— Set the objectives that determine which KPIs drive RICE impact scoringmarket-sizing— TAM/SAM/SOM analysis that informs strategic prioritycompetitive-analysis— Competitor context that raises or lowers WSJF time criticality scores
Version: 1.0.0
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

