prioritization-frame-picker

name

prioritization-frame-picker

description

Pick and apply the RIGHT prioritization framework for a decision instead of defaulting to one — match the situation to a frame (RICE, WSJF/cost-of-delay, value-vs-effort/ICE, Kano, opportunity scoring, MoSCoW), surface the inputs each frame needs and how reliable they are, guard against false rigor (a precise RICE score built from guessed numbers), handle must-do and incomparable items OUTSIDE the score, and produce a ranked list with the frame's assumptions and sensitivity made explicit. Owns the RANKING method and its honest application; sequencing the ranked set over time is roadmap-under-uncertainty-planner's. Use when a backlog needs ranking, when stakeholders argue about priority, when a scoring model is being gamed or over-trusted, or when choosing a prioritization method. Do NOT use to sequence/communicate a roadmap over horizons (roadmap-under-uncertainty-planner), to spec one feature (product-spec-writer), or to elicit the underlying requirements (requirements-gathering-facilitator).

Prioritization Frame Picker

Purpose

Every team has a prioritization framework and most use the wrong one for the decision in front of them — RICE-scoring a list of legal-compliance must-dos, or eyeballing value-vs-effort for a portfolio where timing dominates. Worse, the framework's numeric output gets treated as truth: a RICE score of 42.7 built from three guesses and a made-up reach figure outranks a strategic bet because the bet "didn't score well". This skill picks the frame that fits the decision, names the inputs it needs and how reliable they are, guards against the false rigor of precise scores on soft data, pulls must-do and incomparable items out of the formula where they belong, and produces a ranked list whose assumptions and sensitivity are on the table. It owns the RANKING; sequencing the ranked set over horizons is roadmap-under-uncertainty-planner's.

Use When

• Use when: a backlog or set of initiatives needs ranking and there's no agreed method, or the current one doesn't fit.
• Use when: stakeholders argue about priority and a shared, explicit frame would move the conversation from opinion to assumptions.
• Use when: an existing scoring model is being gamed, or its numbers are trusted far beyond the quality of their inputs.
• Use when: choosing which prioritization framework to adopt for a team or a specific decision.
• Do NOT use when: the items are already ranked and the task is to sequence/communicate them over time — that is roadmap-under-uncertainty-planner.
• Do NOT use when: the task is detailing ONE chosen item (problem, scope, acceptance criteria) — that is product-spec-writer.
• Do NOT use when: the real gap is not knowing what's needed or valuable yet — elicit first with requirements-gathering-facilitator; prioritizing unknowns produces confident nonsense.

Inputs to Inspect

1. What's being prioritized: comparable features, a mixed portfolio, bugs, experiments, or whole initiatives — the object determines the frame.
2. The goal the ranking serves: growth, retention, revenue, risk reduction, flow/throughput — the frame's "value" must mean this.
3. The available inputs and their quality: is there real reach/usage data or are impact and reach guesses? Which numbers are evidence vs fiction?
4. Time sensitivity: whether cost-of-delay/timing dominates (favoring WSJF) or value/effort is roughly time-stable.
5. The non-negotiables: compliance, security, keep-the-lights-on, and contractual must-dos that shouldn't be forced through a value formula.

Workflow

1. Frame the decision before the framework. State what's being ranked, toward what outcome, with what input quality and time horizon. The wrong frame applied rigorously is worse than the right frame applied roughly.
2. Select the frame to fit. Match, don't default: RICE for many comparable features where reach matters; WSJF / cost-of-delay when timing and flow dominate; value-vs-effort or ICE for a fast, coarse cut; Kano to classify basic vs performance vs delighter; opportunity scoring for importance-vs-satisfaction gaps; MoSCoW for release scoping. Name the chosen frame's fit AND its limits.
3. Expose the inputs and their reliability. List each input the frame needs and mark it evidence or guess. Use the confidence factor (RICE's confidence, or an explicit discount) to deflate scores built on guesses — that is what it's for.
4. Refuse false rigor. Score in ranges or buckets (t-shirt sizes), not false decimals; run a sensitivity check (does the ranking hold if a soft input is off by 2×?). If the order flips on a guess, the ranking is a coin flip wearing a spreadsheet.
5. Handle items the formula can't. Pull must-dos (compliance, security, reliability) into a protected lane rather than letting a low value score bury them. Flag strategic bets that score poorly but matter, and genuinely incomparable items, for explicit human judgment — the frame informs, it doesn't overrule.
6. Produce the ranking honestly. The ordered list, the inputs and their quality, the confidence, the sensitivity result, and the items handled outside the frame. Make the assumptions visible so the argument is about them, not about the number.
7. Hand off. State that sequencing the ranked set over horizons — with dependencies, capacity, and re-planning — is roadmap-under-uncertainty-planner's job.

Framework selection guide, input-reliability discipline, and the sensitivity-check method: references/prioritization-frames-sheet.md.

Output Format

PRIORITIZATION — <what's being ranked>, toward <outcome>
Frame:        <RICE | WSJF | value/effort | ICE | Kano | opportunity | MoSCoW> — why it fits; limits
Inputs:       <inputs the frame needs, each marked [evidence] | [guess]>
Ranking:      <ordered list with scores in ranges/buckets, not false decimals>
Confidence:   <how much the input quality supports the order>
Sensitivity:  <does the order hold if a soft input is off 2×? which pairs flip?>
Outside the frame:
  Must-do lane: <compliance/security/keep-lights-on — protected, not value-scored>
  Strategic/incomparable: <flagged for human judgment>
Handoff:      sequencing over time → roadmap-under-uncertainty-planner

Validation Checklist

• The decision is framed (object, outcome, input quality, time horizon) before a framework is chosen.
• The framework is matched to the situation with its fit AND limits stated — not defaulted.
• Every input is marked evidence or guess; guesses discount the score via a confidence factor.
• Scores are ranges/buckets, not false decimals; a sensitivity check is run and flips are reported.
• Must-dos are in a protected lane; strategic/incomparable items are flagged for human judgment, not buried by the formula.
• The ranking's assumptions are explicit so debate targets them, not the number.
• Sequencing over time is handed to roadmap-under-uncertainty-planner.

Gotchas

• A precise score launders guesses into authority: 42.7 looks earned even when reach and impact were invented. Round to buckets so the precision matches the evidence.
• Defaulting to RICE (or whatever the org uses) for every decision mis-ranks whole classes of work — timing-dominated portfolios, must-dos, delighters. The frame is a choice, not a habit.
• The confidence factor exists precisely to punish confident guessing; teams that set it to 100% on everything have removed the one honest part of RICE.
• Forcing compliance and security must-dos through a value formula either games the inputs to make them "win" or buries genuinely required work. Put them in a lane above the score.
• A strategic bet that scores badly is often the point of the strategy — the formula optimizes for the measurable, and the measurable is short-term. Keep human judgment above the number for those.
• If the ranking flips when one soft input moves within its plausible range, you don't have a ranking — you have noise. Report that instead of a false order.
• Prioritizing before requirements are understood ranks fantasies. If the value of items is unknown, elicit first.

Stop Conditions

• The items are already ranked and the task is to sequence/communicate them over time → route to roadmap-under-uncertainty-planner.
• The value/need of the items is genuinely unknown (no requirements yet) → route to requirements-gathering-facilitator first; ranking unknowns is confident nonsense.
• Stakeholders demand a single definitive number to end the debate when the inputs are guesses → surface the sensitivity and the assumptions, and route the real trade-off to a human decision rather than manufacturing a decisive score.
• A must-do (legal/security) is being value-scored to justify de- prioritizing it → halt and move it to the protected lane; do not produce a ranking that buries required work.

Supporting Files

• references/prioritization-frames-sheet.md — the framework selection guide (fit/inputs/limits per frame), the input-reliability discipline, and the sensitivity-check method.
• evals/evals.json — behavior cases including frame selection, the false-rigor refusal, and the must-do-lane handling.
• evals/trigger-evals.json — discrimination against roadmap-under-uncertainty-planner (rank vs sequence), product-spec-writer, and requirements-gathering-facilitator.