prioritization
Skill20 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use for prioritization, or when there are more tasks than capacity: "what should we do first?", "rank this backlog", "cut scope for the MVP", "RICE score these". Picks a method (RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, impact-effort), scores items and sets a cut line. Skip for choosing between two designs.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Adelie-Squad/solosquadtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- vijaysuperpositionist/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- zpower426/pmpowerstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- The-Utopia-Studio/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- nahid-sparktales/agent-dispatchertheir own version, first seen Sep 21, 2026
- sruthir28/enterprise-ai-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 14, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- sruthir28/enterprise-ai-skills★ 136same name
- nahid-sparktales/agent-dispatcher★ 59same name
- Adelie-Squad/solosquad★ 25same name
- The-Utopia-Studio/skills★ 6same name
- hajekim/agentic-design-patterns-skills★ 4same name
- hajekim/agentic-design-patterns-extension★ 1same name
- vijaysuperpositionist/skills★ 0same name
- zpower426/pmpowers★ 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 repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- analytical-thinkingSkill
- creative-thinkingSkill
- critical-thinkingSkill
- design-thinkingSkill
- ethical-thinkingSkill
- fermi-estimationSkill
- first-principles-thinkingSkill
- five-whysSkill
- lateral-thinkingSkill
- pre-mortemSkill
- six-thinking-hatsSkill
- strategic-thinkingSkill
- swot-analysisSkill
- systems-thinkingSkill
- thinking-method-selectorSkill
- tradeoff-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 26
Gather first: Read the backlog, tickets, usage data, customer requests and past estimates.
- Distinctive: line 46
MoSCoW: Must, Should, Could, Won't (this time).
- Distinctive: line 47
Impact-effort: place each item in quick wins (high impact, low effort), big bets, fill-ins or avoid.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Prioritization
Order a list of work by value and cost, and draw a cut line. Pick the lightest method that fits the situation; precision beyond the quality of your inputs is noise.
When to use
- A backlog, roadmap, bug list, feature list or task list larger than capacity.
- "What first?", "what can we cut?", "MVP scope", "RICE / ICE / MoSCoW".
- A stakeholder disagreement about order that needs a transparent method.
Skip: choosing between two or three alternative designs or vendors on tradeoffs, or estimating a single number.
Before you start
- State in one block: Goal the ranking serves, Capacity or deadline, Items (count), and Pass (Pick method, Score, Rank, Cut line, Sanity check).
- Gather first. Read the backlog, tickets, usage data, customer requests and past estimates. Never invent reach or effort numbers; mark guesses
[ESTIMATED]and give a range. Ask up to 3 questions only for goals and capacity tools cannot answer. - Light path. Small ask: pick a method in one line, score in one table, name the top 3 and the cut line.
Steps
1. Pick the method
| Situation | Method |
| Many items, some data on users and effort | RICE |
| Many items, quick gut-level estimates | ICE |
| Fixed deadline or MVP, need to cut scope | MoSCoW |
| Few items, fast triage in a meeting | Impact-effort 2x2 |
| Personal or team task triage | Eisenhower (urgent x important) |
State the choice and why in one line.
2. Score
- RICE = Reach x Impact x Confidence / Effort. Reach: people or events per period. Impact: 0.25 minimal, 0.5 low, 1 medium, 2 high, 3 massive. Confidence: 100%, 80% or 50%. Effort: person-months.
- ICE = Impact x Confidence x Ease, each 1-10.
- MoSCoW: Must, Should, Could, Won't (this time). Keep Musts to roughly 60% of capacity so there is room for surprises.
- Impact-effort: place each item in quick wins (high impact, low effort), big bets, fill-ins or avoid.
Show the table with one-line basis for each score.
3. Rank
Sort by score. Break ties by dependencies (what unblocks others), risk reduction, and cost of delay.
4. Cut line
Mark where capacity runs out. Name what is deliberately not done.
5. Sanity check
Compare the top of the list with your intuition. If they disagree, find the input that drives the difference and decide whether the score or the intuition is wrong.
Pitfalls
- False precision: scores of 41.2 vs 39.8 are a tie.
- Everything is a Must. If Musts exceed capacity, the method has not helped yet; force a cut.
- Scoring effort in the author's own optimistic hours. Ask the people who will do the work.
- Ignoring dependencies: the highest score may need a lower item first.
- Gaming: the scorer favors a pet item. Have someone else check the top 3 inputs.
- Hiding that the ranking serves a goal. State the goal; a different goal changes the order.
Worked example: references/example.md.
Checklist
- Goal, capacity and item count stated
- Method chosen with a reason
- Every score has a basis; guesses marked
[ESTIMATED] - Ties broken by dependencies, risk and cost of delay
- Cut line drawn; not-doing list named
- Sanity check done
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.