agentleFS
mikulgohilmikulgohil/claude-skills/skills/personal/task-prioritization/SKILL.md

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

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
  1. Distinctive:

    No user data required. Score relative to other backlog items.

    line 98
  2. Distinctive:

    When two items compete for the same team capacity, quantify what delaying each item costs per month.

    line 128

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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)
FrameworkBest ForData RequiredTime to Score
RICEData-rich teams, steady-state prioritizationAnalytics, user counts30-60 min
WSJFSAFe orgs, time-sensitive or regulated workRelative estimates only15-30 min
ICEStartup speed, early validation, quick triageNone5-10 min
MoSCoWScope negotiation, release planningStakeholder input1-2 hours
Value-Effort2x2 visual, quick team alignmentNone10-15 min

RICE

RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
FactorScaleNotes
ReachActual users/quarterUse analytics; do not estimate
Impact0.25 / 0.5 / 1 / 2 / 3Minimal → Massive per user
Confidence0.3 / 0.5 / 0.8 / 1.0Moonshot → Strong data
EffortPerson-monthsInclude 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 = 5.25

See 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 either

See 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

PitfallMitigation
Gaming scores to justify pre-decided workCalibrate as a team; document assumptions
Mixing frameworks in one tablePick one framework per planning session
Only tracking high-RICE items; ignoring cost of delayCombine 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 goalsOnly 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 documents
  • product-analytics — Define and instrument the metrics that feed RICE reach/impact scores
  • okr-design — Set the objectives that determine which KPIs drive RICE impact scoring
  • market-sizing — TAM/SAM/SOM analysis that informs strategic priority
  • competitive-analysis — Competitor context that raises or lowers WSJF time criticality scores

Version: 1.0.0

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.