PaperclipOrg
Claude Agent Skill · by Deanpeters

Prioritization Advisor

Install Prioritization Advisor skill for Claude Code from deanpeters/product-manager-skills.

Works with Paperclip

How Prioritization Advisor fits into a Paperclip company.

Prioritization Advisor drops into any Paperclip agent that handles this kind of work. Assign it to a specialist inside a pre-configured PaperclipOrg company and the skill becomes available on every heartbeat — no prompt engineering, no tool wiring.

S
SaaS FactoryPaired

Pre-configured AI company — 18 agents, 18 skills, one-time purchase.

$27$59
Explore pack
Source file
SKILL.md448 lines
Expand
---name: prioritization-advisordescription: Choose a prioritization framework based on stage, team context, and stakeholder needs. Use when deciding between RICE, ICE, value/effort, or another scoring approach.intent: >-  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.type: interactivebest_for:  - "Choosing the right prioritization framework for a team or stage"  - "Deciding between RICE, ICE, value/effort, and similar models"  - "Reducing debate about how to prioritize competing work"scenarios:  - "Which prioritization framework should my startup use right now?"  - "Help me choose between RICE and value/effort for roadmap planning"  - "We keep arguing about prioritization. Recommend a framework."---  ## PurposeGuide 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. ## Key Concepts ### The Prioritization Framework LandscapeCommon frameworks and when to use them: **Scoring frameworks:**- **RICE** (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort) — Data-driven, requires metrics- **ICE** (Impact, Confidence, Ease) — Lightweight, gut-check scoring- **Value vs. Effort** (2x2 matrix) — Quick wins vs. strategic bets- **Weighted Scoring** — Custom criteria with stakeholder input **Strategic frameworks:**- **Kano Model** — Classify features by customer delight (basic, performance, delight)- **Opportunity Scoring** — Rate importance vs. satisfaction gap- **Buy-a-Feature** — Customer budget allocation exercise- **Moscow** (Must, Should, Could, Won't) — Forcing function for hard choices **Contextual frameworks:**- **Cost of Delay** — Urgency-based (time-sensitive features)- **Impact Mapping** — Goal-driven (tie features to outcomes)- **Story Mapping** — User journey-based (narrative flow) ### Why This Works- **Context-aware:** Matches framework to product stage, team maturity, data availability- **Anti-dogmatic:** No single "best" framework—it depends on your situation- **Actionable:** Provides implementation steps, not just framework names ### Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)- **Not a universal ranking:** Frameworks aren't "better" or "worse"—they fit different contexts- **Not a replacement for strategy:** Frameworks execute strategy; they don't create it- **Not set-it-and-forget-it:** Reassess frameworks as your product matures ### When to Use This- Choosing a prioritization framework for the first time- Switching frameworks (current one isn't working)- Aligning stakeholders on prioritization process- Onboarding new PMs to team practices ### When NOT to Use This- When you already have a working framework (don't fix what isn't broken)- For one-off decisions (frameworks are for recurring prioritization)- As a substitute for strategic vision (frameworks can't tell you what to build) --- ### Facilitation Source of Truth Use [`workshop-facilitation`](../workshop-facilitation/SKILL.md) as the default interaction protocol for this skill. It defines:- session heads-up + entry mode (Guided, Context dump, Best guess)- one-question turns with plain-language prompts- progress labels (for example, Context Qx/8 and Scoring Qx/5)- interruption handling and pause/resume behavior- numbered recommendations at decision points- quick-select numbered response options for regular questions (include `Other (specify)` when useful) This file defines the domain-specific assessment content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic. ## Application This interactive skill asks **up to 4 adaptive questions**, offering **3-4 enumerated options** at each step. --- ### Question 1: Product Stage **Agent asks:**"What stage is your product in?" **Offer 4 enumerated options:** 1. **Pre-product/market fit** — "Searching for PMF; experimenting rapidly; unclear what customers want" (High uncertainty, need speed)2. **Early PMF, scaling** — "Found initial PMF; growing fast; adding features to retain/expand" (Moderate uncertainty, balancing speed + quality)3. **Mature product, optimization** — "Established market; incremental improvements; competing on quality/features" (Low uncertainty, data-driven decisions)4. **Multiple products/platform** — "Portfolio of products; cross-product dependencies; complex stakeholder needs" (Coordination complexity) **Or describe your product stage (new idea, growth mode, established, etc.).** **User response:** [Selection or custom] --- ### Question 2: Team Context **Agent asks:**"What's your team and stakeholder environment like?" **Offer 4 enumerated options:** 1. **Small team, limited resources** — "3-5 engineers, 1 PM, need to focus ruthlessly" (Need simple, fast framework)2. **Cross-functional team, aligned** — "Product, design, engineering aligned; clear goals; good collaboration" (Can use data-driven frameworks)3. **Multiple stakeholders, misaligned** — "Execs, sales, customers all have opinions; need transparent process" (Need consensus-building framework)4. **Large org, complex dependencies** — "Multiple teams, shared roadmap, cross-team dependencies" (Need coordination framework) **Or describe your team/stakeholder context.** **User response:** [Selection or custom] --- ### Question 3: Decision-Making Needs **Agent asks:**"What's the primary challenge you're trying to solve with prioritization?" **Offer 4 enumerated options:** 1. **Too many ideas, unclear which to pursue** — "Backlog is 100+ items; need to narrow to top 10" (Need filtering framework)2. **Stakeholders disagree on priorities** — "Sales wants features, execs want strategic bets, engineering wants tech debt" (Need alignment framework)3. **Lack of data-driven decisions** — "Prioritizing by gut feel; want metrics-based process" (Need scoring framework)4. **Hard tradeoffs between strategic bets vs. quick wins** — "Balancing long-term vision vs. short-term customer needs" (Need value/effort framework) **Or describe your specific challenge.** **User response:** [Selection or custom] --- ### Question 4: Data Availability **Agent asks:**"How much data do you have to inform prioritization?" **Offer 3 enumerated options:** 1. **Minimal data** — "New product, no usage metrics, few customers to survey" (Gut-based frameworks)2. **Some data** — "Basic analytics, customer feedback, but no rigorous data collection" (Lightweight scoring frameworks)3. **Rich data** — "Usage metrics, A/B tests, customer surveys, clear success metrics" (Data-driven frameworks) **Or describe your data situation.** **User response:** [Selection or custom] --- ### Output: Recommend Prioritization Framework After collecting responses, the agent recommends a framework: ```markdown# 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?**``` --- ## Examples ### Example 1: Good Framework Match (Early PMF, RICE) **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:**- You have some data (analytics, customer feedback) to estimate Reach and Impact- Cross-functional team alignment means you can agree on scoring criteria- Transitioning from gut feel to data-driven = RICE provides structure without overwhelming complexity- Early PMF stage = need speed, but also need to prioritize high-impact features for retention/expansion **When to use it:**- Quarterly or monthly roadmap planning- When backlog exceeds 20-30 items- When stakeholders debate priorities **When NOT to use it:**- For strategic, multi-quarter bets (RICE favors incremental wins)- When you lack basic metrics (Reach requires usage data)- For single-feature decisions (overkill) --- **Implementation:** ### Step 1: Define Scoring Criteria- **Reach:** How many users will this feature affect per month/quarter?- **Impact:** How much will it improve their experience? (1 = minimal, 2 = high, 3 = massive)- **Confidence:** How confident are you in your Reach/Impact estimates? (50% = low data, 80% = good data, 100% = certain)- **Effort:** How many person-months to build? (Include design, engineering, QA) ### Step 2: Score Each Feature- Use a spreadsheet or Airtable- Involve PM, design, engineering in scoring (not just PM solo)- Be honest about Confidence (don't inflate scores) ### Step 3: Calculate RICE Score- Formula: `(Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort`- Higher score = higher priority ### Step 4: Review and Adjust- Sort by RICE score- Review top 10-20 with stakeholders- Adjust for strategic priorities (RICE doesn't capture everything) --- **Example 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:**- Simpler than RICE (no Reach calculation)- Faster to score (good if you need quick decisions) **Tradeoffs:**- Less data-driven (no Reach metric = can't compare features affecting different user bases)- More subjective (Impact/Ease are gut-feel, not metrics) --- **Common Pitfalls:** 1. **Overweighting Effort** — Don't avoid hard problems just because they score low. Some strategic bets require high effort.2. **Inflating Confidence** — Be honest. 50% confidence is okay if data is scarce.3. **Ignoring strategy** — RICE doesn't capture strategic importance. Adjust for vision/goals. --- ### Example 2: Bad Framework Match (Pre-PMF + RICE = Wrong Fit) **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:**- You don't have usage data to estimate Reach- Pre-PMF = you need speed, not rigorous scoring- Small team = overhead of RICE scoring is too heavy **Why ICE instead:**- Lightweight, gut-check framework- Can score 20 ideas in 30 minutes- Good for rapid experimentation phase **Or Value/Effort Matrix:**- Visual 2x2 matrix (high value/low effort = quick wins)- Even faster than ICE- Good for stakeholder alignment (visual, intuitive) --- ## Common Pitfalls ### Pitfall 1: Using the Wrong Framework for Your Stage**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. --- ### Pitfall 2: Framework Whiplash**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. --- ### Pitfall 3: Treating Scores as Gospel**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. --- ### Pitfall 4: Solo PM Scoring**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. --- ### Pitfall 5: No Framework at All**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. --- ## References ### Related Skills- `user-story.md` — Prioritized features become user stories- `epic-hypothesis.md` — Prioritized epics validated with experiments- `recommendation-canvas.md` — Business outcomes inform prioritization ### External Frameworks- Intercom, *RICE Prioritization* (2016) — Origin of RICE framework- Sean McBride, *ICE Scoring* (2012) — Lightweight prioritization- Luke Hohmann, *Innovation Games* (2006) — Buy-a-Feature and other collaborative methods- Noriaki Kano, *Kano Model* (1984) — Customer satisfaction framework ### Dean's Work- [If Dean has prioritization resources, link here] --- **Skill type:** Interactive**Suggested filename:** `prioritization-advisor.md`**Suggested placement:** `/skills/interactive/`**Dependencies:** None (standalone, but informs roadmap and backlog decisions)